Is winning at any cost truly worth the risks involved? Does losing with honour matter less than the desired result? Is there just too much pressure to cheat and not nearly enough to play fair? Most importantly, does deliberate rulebreaking tarnish a sport beyond repair?
These aren’t original questions. They’ve been posed a million times before. But as long as athletes continue to get caught breaking the rules of the game, they’ll continue to be asked.
Here’s another one: should The Tour De France be cancelled?
The most famous race in cycling saw its profile raised considerably during Lance Armstrong’s era. How could it not when the testicular cancer survivor won the damn thing seven times in a row? I remember Toronto Sun columnist Peter Worthington once making the case at the time that because of this unprecedented accomplishment Armstrong was possibly the greatest athlete in history. It didn’t sound so absurd back then.
But knowing what we now know about Armstrong’s chronic dependence on blood and hormone doping, it is. Quite frankly, we should’ve been immediately skeptical of his first victory, let alone the six that followed.
I mean, honestly, the man is only producing 50% testosterone. (He’s down to one testicle after a near-fatal battle with cancer in the 90s.) That’s a huge disadvantage right off the bat. (As far as we know, no one else he raced against went through a similiarly terrible ordeal.) I don’t care how strong and dedicated an athlete you are, it’s highly unlikely you can survive and thrive in 21 days of cycling (with rest periods, of course) through some 2000 miles of French terrain and come out the overall winner cleanly just once. Forget about seven. Look, I’m no doctor of sports medicine but there’s just no way.
And now, thanks to a recent, voluminous report from the USADA (over 200 pages), the American regulatory body that oversees doping matters involving its athletes, we have proof of that doubt. Armstrong and many of his teammates were deeply committed to winning The Tour De France by blatantly circumventing the rules of fair play and ultimately, the process of drug testing. Attaining victory without honour never gave them pause.
Before the report’s release, many have long weighed in this year about this matter, most coming to the inevitable conclusion that Armstrong has a lot of explaining to do. Unfortunately and incredulously, he’s long denied doing anything remotely unethical. Even worse, he ruthlessly bullies those who have spoke out against him (including not-so-innocent but understandably guilt-ridden teammates and associates) going so far as to publicly trash their, in some cases, already soiled reputations and suing them in civil court.
But Armstrong isn’t the only culprit nor are his teammates. According to this Guardian commentary, the vast majority of Tour De France winners in the last 45 years “have been tarnished or implicated by doping”. So, here’s the big question. How do you prevent cheaters from dominating this race when they are almost always well ahead of the latest anti-doping procedures put in place?
The answer is easy. You really can’t. Before the full extent of the Armstrong matter was revealed, other than those more tuned into the culture of cycling than the rest of us, who among us had ever heard of blood doping? What about adding testosterone to your system in between stages? Maybe I’m just not that clever of a human being but other than training like the dickens, eating the appropriate foods and getting the requisite amount of sleep before these kinds of races, what else would be needed to win?
You’d be correct in saying I’m hopelessly naive. It’s a lifelong problem. But when you’re guaranteed a 5 million dollar bonus for winning the Tour De France, maybe you wouldn’t think twice to do whatever it takes to win it, even if that means sacrificing your senses of honesty, integrity and overall decency. Like I said, honour wasn’t a concern for Armstrong and company.
For almost everybody on Armstrong’s old cycling team, they couldn’t pretend all was kosher any longer. That’s why the USADA has pages and pages of their sworn testimony exposing what they call “the most sophisticated, professionalised and successful doping programme that sport has ever seen”.
But The One-Ball Wonder is another story. He has yet to admit to any chicanery. One wonders if he ever will. He’s just that stubborn. Or, as this stinging Guardian editorial notes, “more like a psychopath” and “a coward”.
He’s already lost his athletic reputation and professional career, and all his Tour De France championships. All that’s left is his Nike endorsement (guess cheaters really move the merch) and his anti-cancer organization, Live Strong. (Will it be renamed Live Wrong?)
But of course, Armstrong isn’t the only culprit. Cycling is filled with competitors just like him, only not nearly as successful and wealthy. Which brings me back to that question: should The Tour De France be cancelled?
Here’s a couple of follow-ups: if cleaning up the sport is next to impossible, if not outright impossible, why bother to continue having this race every year? If the legitimacy of victory can’t be taken at face value nor can the cheats be caught in real time, what’s the point of carrying on?
Dennis Earl
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Saturday, October 13, 2012
11:32 p.m.
UPDATE: Now he doesn’t even have his Nike endorsement. The shoe company just announced it won’t be supporting him financially any longer. Three other companies have also ended their commercial partnerships with the embattled cyclist. Armstrong has also resigned his position as chairman of his Live Strong anti-cancer charity. According to CNN, though, he’ll continue to work with the organization, mostly as a fundraiser. Yeah, that’ll work. What’s the point of quitting if you’re not actually quitting? And who would personally give money to a fraud? (By the way, just to be clear, Live Strong is and always has been a legit charity so feel free to donate to them directly. Armstrong should just get out of the way already. He’s the fraud I’m referring to, not Live Strong.)
Recently, Lewis Black commented on the scandal during a segment of The Daily Show where he noted that Armstrong not only had testicular cancer but also cancer in his lungs, abdomen and brain which makes all his cycling accomplishments even more preposterous. A clip of a 2005 CNN report was played during his commentary which noted Armstrong’s supposedly impressive lung capacity that made him something of a superman compared to everybody else. Is it any wonder he got away with this bullshit for so long? Bring back healthy skepticism. We miss it dearly.
Dennis Earl
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
7:12 p.m.
CORRECTION & UPDATE 2: Armstrong hasn’t lost his Olympic Bronze medal as I erroneously noted in paragraph 14. That portion has now been deleted. That being said, however, he may end up losing it after all according to this. Furthermore, according to the recent documentary, The World According To Lance Armstrong (which aired recently on CBC News Network and CNN), the reason the disgraced cyclist developed cancer in the first place is precisely because he had been using five different performance enhancing drugs which he freely admitted to his doctor in the presence of three other witnesses. In other words, Armstrong had been juicing his entire professional career. It has literally taken the anti-doping authorities 20 years to nab him.
Dennis Earl
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Thursday, November 1, 2012
4:47 p.m.
UPDATE 3: As of last week, he’s no longer part of LiveStrong’s Board of Directors.
Dennis Earl
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Monday, November 12, 2012
10:20 p.m.
UPDATE 4: And now he will be stripped of that Olympic Bronze according to this. In Part One of her exclusive interview with Armstrong, Oprah Winfrey was able to accomplish what no one has ever been able to do before. She got the disgraced cyclist to finally admit on the record that he was in fact a drug cheat during his racing career. Unfortunately, he’s still disputing certain accusations against him as well as severely downplaying and conveniently forgetting his leadership role running his cycling teams. (Tyler Hamilton went much further in The Secret Race.) While it’s a good thing he’s finally starting to admit to some shenanigans he has to cop to everything. Otherwise, what’s the point?
Dennis Earl
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Thursday, January 17, 2013
11:11 p.m.
CM Punk’s Steve Austin Problem
When CM Punk delivered his game-changing promo at the end of a June 2011 episode of Raw, he made a point of wearing a Stone Cold Steve Austin T-shirt. In interviews, the real-life Phil Brooks has expressed admiration for the Texas Rattlesnake, going so far as to cite him as one of his favourite all-time professional wrestlers.
Earlier this year, when Brooks tweeted a half-joking remark about wanting to face Chris Brown at WrestleMania 28, the R&B singer went nuts and falsely accused the Straight Edge Superstar of being a steroid abuser. The current WWE Champion calmly responded with a brief online video denouncing Brown’s abusive nature and openly challenged the embattled singer to a real fight in the name of charity. Brown, in a rare moment of wisdom, didn’t accept (Brooks never expected him to) and this silly Twitter war ended just as abruptly as it began.
This is specifically what Brooks said about Brown with regards to his vicious assault on Rihanna:
“…I don’t hit women…Period. You [meaning men in general] don’t hit women. In my world, women are to be revered and respected. And I firmly believe that in this life there are consequences and repercussions for people’s actions. And I don’t think Chris has paid for what he’s done…picking up trash on the side of a highway does not make amends for repeatedly striking a woman to her face and sending her to a hospital…Chris Brown isn’t a man.”
And this is what he promised he’d do to the singer if Brown was foolish enough to fight him:
“I will choke you out and I will make you feel as weak and as powerless and scared and alone as any woman who has had the misfortune of knowing the sad, cowardly little boy such as yourself.”
In 2007, shortly after the Chris Benoit murder-suicide tragedy, former WWF Womens Champion and beauty queen valet Debra Marshall appeared on Hannity & Colmes. During the interview, she talked about her troubled two-year marriage to Stone Cold Steve Austin (they dated for two years prior to the ceremony). Unlike CM Punk, Austin was a serious steroid abuser. As Marshall put it, “…I have seen the steroid rages. I have seen him being paranoid. I have seen his panic attacks. I mean, for three times, I’d seen him attack me — I mean, and at work people would know it, and they would cover the bruises on my face.”
When asked if anyone within the WWE said anything about her abuse at the time, she responded: “No, they’re not going to rat on the top money-maker in wrestling. And everyone else knew this was going on, but no one’s going to stop it, because Steve would make millions of dollars for Vince…And then like for me to have Stone Cold Steve Austin arrested? Oh my gosh, they so hush-hushed that — put it under the table. They put a gag on me for a year that I couldn’t talk about this, because they knew that I could totally bring down their top star.”
Marshall was speaking out many years later hoping her story would prevent another Benoit tragedy from happening. Here’s how she described the 2002 assault that led to the end of her marriage:
“When Steve Austin was pounding on me that last time with his steroid rage, pounding on me, his eyes were bugging out of his head, and it was a rage like the most horrifying thing you’ve ever seen.
And when I called the cops, he ran out the door, yanked the phone lines out, unplugged the garage door openers, yanked the wires out so I couldn’t leave.”
Sadly, Marshall wasn’t Austin’s only victim. Two years later, there was another incident involving another ex, Tess Broussard. Austin has since quietly remarried another woman.
As admirable as it was to publicly condemn Chris Brown’s deplorable actions against Rihanna, where is CM Punk’s outrage for Stone Cold Steve Austin’s equally offensive conduct? I’ll tell you where it is. It doesn’t exist.
Punk and Austin actually sat down for an extended interview over the summer with longtime announcer Jim Ross. (You can see it here. It’s the second video.). Did Austin’s abusive actions come up even once during the conversation?
What was the point of the interview? To promote the new WWE ’13 video game (which features both men as playable characters) but also to rile up wrestling fans for a dream program: Punk vs. Austin potentially for the WWE Championship, maybe even for the next WrestleMania. Both men have taken shots at each other in the media (most likely for kayfabe purposes) and on each other’s official Twitter accounts to keep stirring the pot.
But the elephant in the room cannot be ignored. If CM Punk does indeed work with Stone Cold Steve Austin in any capacity and never addresses the Hall of Famer’s appalling abuse of women, he’s an enormous hypocrite. I mean why go to all that trouble singling out Chris Brown while giving Austin a complete pass for similiar transgressions? (Like Brown, Austin never served a day in prison for beating a woman.) How can you be taken seriously as a defender of women if you only criticize certain abusers while protecting the ones you want to work with?
All this being said, the idea of Austin having an in-ring comeback, even a brief one, has always been questionable, thanks to his recurring neck and knee injuries. In fact, he had knee surgery not that long ago which prevented him from appearing on the 1000th episode of Raw back in July. So, maybe this dream match will stay that way: a dream.
Regardless, if you’re going to make it a point to speak out against those who needlessly abuse women, no perpetrator, not even a fellow professional wrestler you greatly admire should be exempt from your contempt.
The result of such selective outrage? Eroded credibility.
Dennis Earl
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Sunday, October 21, 2012
10:59 p.m.