Armstrong was a true champion. It's the public that wasn't made aware of what the real game was. All the cyclists knew it as did the organization and everyone professionally close to pro cycling. It was a doping game. And out of all that doped, Armstrong won 7 years in a row. He was a true champion.
The more accurate statement here is "cheaters become winners" and not the other way around. Cheating implies rules, and most rules are stupid, especially in sports. Doping of course changes the "sport" in many ways, and is illegal for good reason, but in a true competition of life and death, of success and failure, of rags to riches, of maintaining a family legacy, or of simply "winning" in today's "winner's society", the upside of cheating easily surpasses the downside. And for those who figure out how to cheat, it becomes easy, and part of the game. Then as they see everyone else cheat, the moral and ethical burden is easily nullified.
Rules in society are also pretty stupid. Drug dealers know this. Wall Street for sure knows this. And the smartest people who win, most often than not, do so by cheating, because it's all just a game. And it's okay to cheat in a game as long as you don't get caught. "Play dirty" is the western mantra that embodies this sentiment nicely, and it's a positive sentiment. It's antiestablishmentarianism, it's rock n' roll, it's Bruce Willis in Die Hard.
Regardless of what anyone thinks of Lance Armstrong, you have to hand it to the guy. He certainly made the most out of his cheating win streak through one of the greatest charities of all time. Cheating in sports is one thing. His true legacy was doing whatever he could to help others cheat death as he did.
Spot on. I have heard it explained like this ( by Smeets, a Dutch reporter, whom I dislike ) :
My recollection:
"The riders define 'doping' as going over the limit of detection. They all use 'forbidden' substances but below the limits. That is why they can say with a straight face on TV they are 'absolutely clean'. And two weeks later be caught because of a dosing mistake."
I believe the contrary: the rules (do not kill, do not steal, pay your taxes etc.) are the thing that prevents society from breaking down. There are examples of states which were too weak to enforce these rules and consequently got eradicated from the map.
On one hand, yes, I think you can say that to be a winner, you had to dope. But if you took all of the dopers out, we would still have a winner.
Consider Cadel Evans. In my opinion, I don't think he doped. He was always in the conversation with Vinokourav, Ullrich, and the other top guys. For years.
He eventually won, but the sport was much cleaner by then.
I was a huge Armstrong fan. When I heard that Hincapie admitted to doping, I knew it was over. Over because Hincapie was always Lance's right-hand man, and also over because Armstrong wouldn't go after Hincapie.
I think Armstrong was one of the best cyclists ever, but he is tarnished now just like the others. It's a cruel sport.
Ridiculous non-sense. Every sport has rules, cycling is not different. Doping is against the rules, that's why they have anti-doping tests. If LA was doping he was clearly cheating, not playing the game. It doesn't matter how many people are doing that, the only reasonable thing to do would be to report the abuse, instead of repeating it.
Also, what good has he made to the world of sports if now he is a well known cheater, who lost all his ill-gotten titles?
I think what your trying to say can be more abstractly put as "the ends justify the means".
> Rules in society are also pretty stupid.
If you mean laws than no.. they are not stupid. Killing people and getting away with it is bad. And some of the "rules" in wall street if broken can have an equally horrific impact.
And that comes back to the question do the ends justify the means? Sometimes it does for sure. For Armstrong it could be argued it did.
Your point about whether doping is inherent in cycling is a good discussion point, but the research that the article describes shows how "Winners turn to cheating" even in cases where drugs aren't part of the equation.
Great post. Unsure why all the responses to this seem to equate cheating in a sport with murder, tax evasion or other rules that are far more fundamental to the proper operation of society.
I see what uber is doing as far more ethically questionable than ubiquitous doping in a sport.
If we didn't view people like Armstrong as role models there wouldn't be much of a problem. But as long as we tell children to view people like him as role models then they better behave ethically. Unless you want to raise a generation of psychopaths.
Pure, unmitigated bullshit. 'Everyone knew it' is the first defense of a cheater (and of quite a few criminals) but rather than being a true defense that's just an admission of participation in a systematic fraud. There only needs to be one cyclist (in this context) who is racing without doping in accordance with the rules to invalidate your entire thesis; the reality is that people are invited to view and participate in an athletic competition, and that insofar as it is a doping game once you get inside professional cycling, everyone else should be getting prosecuted for perpetuating a fraud upon the public, as Adam Smith recognized centuries ago in The Wealth of Nations when advising governments to be wary of trusting industry associations: 'People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.'
Regardless of what anyone thinks of Lance Armstrong, you have to hand it to the guy. He certainly made the most out of his cheating win streak through one of the greatest charities of all time. Cheating in sports is one thing. His true legacy was doing whatever he could to help others cheat death as he did.
Or so he says. Of course it's rather difficult to assess the opportunity cost here, since sports-affiliated charities engaged in medical research are now inevitably tainted by association. A look at the Livestrong Foundation's Form 990 suggests the organization spent almost as much on compensating its executive staff and lobbyists as it did on grant issuance, and the amount it has disbursed, while substantial (at least $100m over its lifetime, I estimate) is not so large in absolute terms, such that I question your accolade of 'one of the greatest charities of all time.'
I don't have anything for or against Lance Armstrong; I am not very interested in cycling, and I don't think doping in sport represents some sort of moral nadir, but is merely shabby. But I have a big problem with your uncritical acceptance of the fact that because 'everyone knows' there's an inner game that has little to do with the outer game - a phenomenon which seems to exist in almost every sphere of life - that that's OK. It's fraud perpetuated on the general public, which is educated to both respect and fear the moral code of self-restraint inherent in the social contract, and which (importantly) is the most effective governor of interpersonal relations at the individual level. Even many animals have standards of fairness, and to actively undermine those in an organized fashion is, well, cancerous to civilization and our collective wellbeing. Paradoxically, I've become rather fond of 'pharmabro' Martin Shkreli because while he operated his businesses in extremely anti-social fashion, he is pretty up-front about about the fact that he is doing so for pure economic advantage, in contrast to the blatant hypocrisy of all the other people doing likewise while striking postures of humility.
"Faster, Higher, Stronger" book showed a study where athletes were asked what they would give up for an Olympic gold medal and from what I remember a good portion would give up their lives in 5 years for that (or some other crazy time), the pressure and willing to win for professional and aspiring professional athletes is incredible.
Might explain why winners of free market capitalism want to institute measures (laws, regulations) to keep others from achieving the same level of winning.
> Might explain why winners of free market capitalism want to institute measures (laws, regulations) to keep others from achieving the same level of winning.
I don't think that's an accurate description of reality. My take is that everybody wants to institute measures that benefit them and hinder others... but the "winners" (i.e. the rich) have comparatively more political power and thus also more success forcing these measures through.
Part of the same psychology. Like Lance Armstrong, they begin by rationalizing "I just want to level the playing field". Then they take acts to elevate themselves well above the field.
Does someone know if this research has been published and is freely accessible? The difference of the losers of -0.5 compared to the expected value gives me the feeling N is not pretty high...
Very interesting article. Makes me think this is a tendency that we should all look for in ourselves since it could be we start pushing harder to maintain our new 'status' of winning.
It also seems a bit sad that we tend to get so wrapped up in our successes that we will start cheating to maintain our new self identity.
Stories like this greatly depress me. I've been aware of the phenomenon since a young age, when my identically-aged first cousin and I were assigned to count yellow cars in the street in exchange for a small cash reward for each one we identified so as to temporarily relieve the adults of our company at the time. My cousin (whose parents are pretty jolly and easygoing) professed to detect three times as many yellow cars as I did. I'm pathologically honest (probably because I grew up in an abusive environment where even a small transgression was liable to result in a severe beating) and I was simply astonished at my cousin's willingness to maximize his reward at what seemed to me to be an insanely high level of risk. I learned much later in life that my father had bullied my uncle growing up and that the uncle's response was to develop peer-teaming strategies while my father went on to a successful but rather lonely and extremely competitive executive career.
To this day I have a very hard time dealing with any sort of economic activity that has more than a whiff of subjective advantage and am deeply uncomfortable accepting any sort of unexpected windfall, to the point of refusing well-earned and freely-offered promotions and having great difficulty enjoying gifts. I have literally gone hungry and been late on my rent because of an unwillingness to deposit a check (in payment for work) for an amount greater than I had expected to receive. Needless to say, this has had a pretty dire and cumulative effect on my career, material wellbeing etc. :-/
I forgot to add that the one context where this does pay off for me, although I rarely indulge in it, is playing Poker - since elaborate bluffing and systematic dishonesty is actually a legitimate play strategy in that game I'm able to manufacture tells and run a 'slow loser' strategy with ease and frequently walk off with the entire pot. I've never had the resources or risk tolerance to try it against professionals, though.
> When Lance Armstrong was found guilty of doping a few years ago, the sports world was aghast. For almost a decade, he had dominated cycling so thoroughly that the thought of anyone else winning bordered on ridiculous. Few had guessed that he had done it by cheating, and many found it hard to believe, even after Armstrong himself owned up to his dishonesty.
Huh. I was just barely a young adult when Armstrong began his period of dominance, and this doesn't match my recollection. Most people I spoke with who had any familiarity with cycling were utterly convinced he was cheating. Maybe this wasn't true outside the bubble of my peers?
I wonder how much of the first experiment described is not due to causation, but is instead from certain kinds of people being both more likely to win and to cheat.
Some of the other ones do point to causation, but it would be interesting to see an experiment where people thought it was skill, but the actual winners were chosen randomly (e.g. you get points, and they tell you who wins at the end, but you don't see the actual calculation, so you won't be suspicious.)
[+] [-] stygiansonic|10 years ago|reply
Related Ars link: http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/02/winners-act-as-thick-...
[+] [-] unabst|10 years ago|reply
The more accurate statement here is "cheaters become winners" and not the other way around. Cheating implies rules, and most rules are stupid, especially in sports. Doping of course changes the "sport" in many ways, and is illegal for good reason, but in a true competition of life and death, of success and failure, of rags to riches, of maintaining a family legacy, or of simply "winning" in today's "winner's society", the upside of cheating easily surpasses the downside. And for those who figure out how to cheat, it becomes easy, and part of the game. Then as they see everyone else cheat, the moral and ethical burden is easily nullified.
Rules in society are also pretty stupid. Drug dealers know this. Wall Street for sure knows this. And the smartest people who win, most often than not, do so by cheating, because it's all just a game. And it's okay to cheat in a game as long as you don't get caught. "Play dirty" is the western mantra that embodies this sentiment nicely, and it's a positive sentiment. It's antiestablishmentarianism, it's rock n' roll, it's Bruce Willis in Die Hard.
Regardless of what anyone thinks of Lance Armstrong, you have to hand it to the guy. He certainly made the most out of his cheating win streak through one of the greatest charities of all time. Cheating in sports is one thing. His true legacy was doing whatever he could to help others cheat death as he did.
Devils don't save lives (people do).
[+] [-] the-dude|10 years ago|reply
My recollection:
"The riders define 'doping' as going over the limit of detection. They all use 'forbidden' substances but below the limits. That is why they can say with a straight face on TV they are 'absolutely clean'. And two weeks later be caught because of a dosing mistake."
[+] [-] lgieron|10 years ago|reply
I believe the contrary: the rules (do not kill, do not steal, pay your taxes etc.) are the thing that prevents society from breaking down. There are examples of states which were too weak to enforce these rules and consequently got eradicated from the map.
[+] [-] softyeti|10 years ago|reply
Consider Cadel Evans. In my opinion, I don't think he doped. He was always in the conversation with Vinokourav, Ullrich, and the other top guys. For years.
He eventually won, but the sport was much cleaner by then.
I was a huge Armstrong fan. When I heard that Hincapie admitted to doping, I knew it was over. Over because Hincapie was always Lance's right-hand man, and also over because Armstrong wouldn't go after Hincapie.
I think Armstrong was one of the best cyclists ever, but he is tarnished now just like the others. It's a cruel sport.
[+] [-] dtertman|10 years ago|reply
You can get better a lot of ways in sport. Why is performance-enhancing drugs the way that is singled out as not acceptable?
[+] [-] coliveira|10 years ago|reply
Also, what good has he made to the world of sports if now he is a well known cheater, who lost all his ill-gotten titles?
[+] [-] agentgt|10 years ago|reply
> Rules in society are also pretty stupid.
If you mean laws than no.. they are not stupid. Killing people and getting away with it is bad. And some of the "rules" in wall street if broken can have an equally horrific impact.
And that comes back to the question do the ends justify the means? Sometimes it does for sure. For Armstrong it could be argued it did.
[+] [-] exolymph|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] garethadams|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xutopia|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] rfrank|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arcanus|10 years ago|reply
I see what uber is doing as far more ethically questionable than ubiquitous doping in a sport.
[+] [-] maxxxxx|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sremani|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] anigbrowl|10 years ago|reply
Regardless of what anyone thinks of Lance Armstrong, you have to hand it to the guy. He certainly made the most out of his cheating win streak through one of the greatest charities of all time. Cheating in sports is one thing. His true legacy was doing whatever he could to help others cheat death as he did.
Or so he says. Of course it's rather difficult to assess the opportunity cost here, since sports-affiliated charities engaged in medical research are now inevitably tainted by association. A look at the Livestrong Foundation's Form 990 suggests the organization spent almost as much on compensating its executive staff and lobbyists as it did on grant issuance, and the amount it has disbursed, while substantial (at least $100m over its lifetime, I estimate) is not so large in absolute terms, such that I question your accolade of 'one of the greatest charities of all time.'
I don't have anything for or against Lance Armstrong; I am not very interested in cycling, and I don't think doping in sport represents some sort of moral nadir, but is merely shabby. But I have a big problem with your uncritical acceptance of the fact that because 'everyone knows' there's an inner game that has little to do with the outer game - a phenomenon which seems to exist in almost every sphere of life - that that's OK. It's fraud perpetuated on the general public, which is educated to both respect and fear the moral code of self-restraint inherent in the social contract, and which (importantly) is the most effective governor of interpersonal relations at the individual level. Even many animals have standards of fairness, and to actively undermine those in an organized fashion is, well, cancerous to civilization and our collective wellbeing. Paradoxically, I've become rather fond of 'pharmabro' Martin Shkreli because while he operated his businesses in extremely anti-social fashion, he is pretty up-front about about the fact that he is doing so for pure economic advantage, in contrast to the blatant hypocrisy of all the other people doing likewise while striking postures of humility.
[+] [-] lazyant|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danvoell|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tomp|10 years ago|reply
I don't think that's an accurate description of reality. My take is that everybody wants to institute measures that benefit them and hinder others... but the "winners" (i.e. the rich) have comparatively more political power and thus also more success forcing these measures through.
[+] [-] JoeAltmaier|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] neonhomer|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] minikites|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Pietertje|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gpvos|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dang|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] benlower|10 years ago|reply
It also seems a bit sad that we tend to get so wrapped up in our successes that we will start cheating to maintain our new self identity.
[+] [-] sschueller|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anigbrowl|10 years ago|reply
To this day I have a very hard time dealing with any sort of economic activity that has more than a whiff of subjective advantage and am deeply uncomfortable accepting any sort of unexpected windfall, to the point of refusing well-earned and freely-offered promotions and having great difficulty enjoying gifts. I have literally gone hungry and been late on my rent because of an unwillingness to deposit a check (in payment for work) for an amount greater than I had expected to receive. Needless to say, this has had a pretty dire and cumulative effect on my career, material wellbeing etc. :-/
I forgot to add that the one context where this does pay off for me, although I rarely indulge in it, is playing Poker - since elaborate bluffing and systematic dishonesty is actually a legitimate play strategy in that game I'm able to manufacture tells and run a 'slow loser' strategy with ease and frequently walk off with the entire pot. I've never had the resources or risk tolerance to try it against professionals, though.
[+] [-] itp|10 years ago|reply
Huh. I was just barely a young adult when Armstrong began his period of dominance, and this doesn't match my recollection. Most people I spoke with who had any familiarity with cycling were utterly convinced he was cheating. Maybe this wasn't true outside the bubble of my peers?
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] heapcity|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] timwaagh|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ikeboy|10 years ago|reply
Some of the other ones do point to causation, but it would be interesting to see an experiment where people thought it was skill, but the actual winners were chosen randomly (e.g. you get points, and they tell you who wins at the end, but you don't see the actual calculation, so you won't be suspicious.)
[+] [-] ScottBurson|10 years ago|reply