Lance Armstrong Doping Scandal
Name
Course
Institution
Summary
Lance Armstrong is a renowned former professional cyclist from the United States born on 18th September 1971. He grew up in the state of Texas. In the cycling cycles, he was regarded as a sports icon after winning seven consecutive Tour De France titles (Sparkles, 2004). Armstrong began competing in cycling as a triathlon athlete at the tender age of 16 before he started his cycling professional career in 1992. His early involvement in the field, therefore, gave him more experience was to be the foundation of a successful career. Armstrong joined the Motorola Cycling Team, which he represented for four years. During his years in the Motorola cycling Team he won tons of races, for example; the 10 one day event that took place in 1993 and other stage races. He also won Tour de France for the first time during this time. He also became first in the Triple Crown of Cycling and the Tour DuPont in America in the year 1994. There are uncountable wins that can be accorded to Armstrong during this time. His greatest achievement, however, was winning the World Race Championship that was held in Norway.
In 1996, at the prime age of his sporting career, Armstrong’s cycling career was temporarily halted after he was admitted in with advanced testicular cancer. After recuperating from this illness he was motivated to start a foundation known as the Armstrong Foundation that aimed at helping children who were also diagnosed with cancer. He made a comeback to cycling in 1998 and eventually retired in 2011. The doping allegations were first brought up in 2009 by Armstrong’s rival, Floyd Landis (Dimeo, 2014). The US anti-doping agency initial investigations into charges did not yield many results. But upon preferring new charges in 2012, USADA accused Armstrong of spearheading the most crafty, professional and subtle doping ever witnessed in the sporting fraternity. As a result, he was stripped of most of the sporting titles that he had won during his illustrious career.
Instances of cognitive bias
Lance Armstrong is convinced that the repeated allegation brought against him concerning the use of performance-enhancing is tantamount to ‘witch hunt’. The cognitive dissonance is shown in his pledging his innocence even when he knows that he was wrong. He blames others’ mistakes on their internal characteristics and attributes his mistakes on external factors. He, for example, believe that his rivals’ accusations against him were because of his prowess in cycling. The fact that the first allegation was dismissed already, even to the public, had created rationality in judgment that exonerated Armstrong of any wrongdoing. Thus with the repeated accusations, Armstrong is seen as a victim of forces that are keen to bring him down as a successful sportsperson. This kind of thinking ends up disclosing Armstrong’s wrongdoings. Even the Union Cycliste Internationale is blinded by this form of bias. In 2008, after his doping allegations, the UCI allow him to participate in the UCI Tour Down Under through Adelaide even though sportsmen who were alleged to be involved in doping were supposed to take part in the six months anti-doping program before being allowed back into the field (Bell, Tell Haule & Hauls, 2016).
Lance Armstrong’s plea of ‘no contest’ in the USADA’s proceedings against him. This happened when the federal judge dismissed Armstrong’s lawsuit that tried to stop USADA from investigation the doping allegations against him. He had lamented that this process was one-sided and unfair. To a large extent, this was a contradiction to what people had come to know Lance Armstrong for; he had fought stage 3 cancer and had overcome it. He had also worked so hard to raise funds and money to fund his cancer charities worldwide. This ‘no contest’ plea portrayed Armstrong as weak and admission of wrongdoing that downgrades him from a hero to a villain. Though to the eyes of the sportswriters and Armstrong’s fans who had adored him for many years, they took this as a matter of unjust scrutiny on an innocent man. They thought that this injustice was being meted to their idol by his long-suffering rivals like Floyd Landis, Tyler Hamilton and others who themselves had been found guilty of doping. As such they wanted to go down Armstrong.
Lance Armstrong’s heavy investment on charity work endeared him to many people, these charities rode on his brand, his reputation and integrity and many people around the world came to know Armstrong throw his prowess on the bike and these charities. Armstrong to a large extent took advantage of this charity work to shape the perception that he is a good person, an honest man who truly cares about humanity. ‘How can such a good man lie?’ Armstrong’s motive from the onset was to divert people attention from his wrongdoings he was perpetuating in the world of sports to the billions he was investing in charity work. He wanted people to believe that he is a good man who wanted fairness and justice for everyone, and yet to the contrary, he was engaged in doping that was creating a lot on unfairness in sport. This bias caused through the charity work had some huge impact on Lance Armstrong’s story, what kind of person is Lance Armstrong. Would we conclude that he is a good man because of the noble charity work he was undertaking, and the huge sums of money he invested in this cause? Or do we close our eyes to everything else and conclude that Lance Armstrong was an evil man who doped his way to winning so many would Cycling titles and in the process unfairly denying his honest competitors opportunities to be winners themselves? This remains a big controversy in Armstrong story and every side of the argument has strong justification concerning how these events have shaped the history in their different fields.
How the Biases were overcome
The cognitive biases against Armstrong were mainly overcome after Armstrong admitting to committing a crime. He was unable to admit to a crime that he had committed because of the cognitive bias that made him believe that the accusations made against him were pitted on jealousy. He comes to the awareness that it is time to give up the belief and come clean to the world. He knows that what he did will have serious repercussions but he still makes the decision to come clean to the world. Even though his great name is tarnished he comes to the awareness that his mistakes were as a result of his doing and that he has to pay for them.
The people come to terms with Armstrong’s mistakes after his confessing. They were also subject to anchoring bias, which made them perceive Armstrong as an honest sports victor even when the strong allegations that would end his career were made. They, therefore, chose to believe that Armstrong was a good man and rule out that everything apart from this was false. They also argued out that his charitable actions were real proof that he was indeed a good man. Although some were fully emersed in this belief that they blamed Armstrong’s confession to politics, some came to the awareness that he was just a man who was desperate in making a name for himself after his close encounter to death.
Conclusion
Our cognitive bias may also lead us to create a halo effect that makes us perceive Armstrong as mainly a bad man. The facts of the matter show that he was both a good and a man. Even though he committed he still did charitable works to help the children who fought for their lives every single day.
References
Sparkes, A. C. (2004). Bodies, narratives, selves, and autobiography: The example of Lance Armstrong. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 28(4), 397-428.
Dimeo, P. (2014). Why Lance Armstrong? Historical context and key turning points in the ‘cleaning up’of professional cycling. The international journal of the history of sport, 31(8), 951-968.
Bell, P., Ten Have, C., & Lauchs, M. (2016). A case study analysis of a sophisticated sports doping network: Lance Armstrong and the USPS Team. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 46, 57-68.