Getting an edge
I'm a little bit amused by the government (the Postal Service) trying to get its money back from Lance Armstrong for sponsoring the team of riders in the Tour de France.
At the time I thought it was an odd use of public funds but at least they were trying something different and who knows what kind of advertising works and I thought promoting an American team was ok.
I have heard there were clauses in the contract regarding complying with rules related to being drug free and not using performance enhancing drugs.
Armstrong's record in the biggest bike race of them all was amazing, as was his ability to hide the use of the drugs that helped him win titles, make a ton of money, promote a good charity, and have access to celebrities that further promoted the life style he had taken up.
The simplest argument regarding this behavior and why he should be taken down is one of fairness. What about the others that ran clean? Were they ever really in the race?
Regarding the Postal Service money I think there is a statute of limitations. They got some benefit from their money although even that benefit is now tarnished I don't think they deserve getting millions of dollars back, because they believed Armstrong and the drug tests of the day.
The other argument is that it was obvious that the sport had some drug usage issues and the Postal Service might have known what they were getting into.
In a larger sense I think just about all sports that involve money and some form of gambling all have issues related to drug usage. Steroids in baseball, hopping up horses, track and field events in the Olympics, and the use of needles to help football players suit up for big games.
Honesty is the best policy but I think it is only used after getting caught.
At the time I thought it was an odd use of public funds but at least they were trying something different and who knows what kind of advertising works and I thought promoting an American team was ok.
I have heard there were clauses in the contract regarding complying with rules related to being drug free and not using performance enhancing drugs.
Armstrong's record in the biggest bike race of them all was amazing, as was his ability to hide the use of the drugs that helped him win titles, make a ton of money, promote a good charity, and have access to celebrities that further promoted the life style he had taken up.
The simplest argument regarding this behavior and why he should be taken down is one of fairness. What about the others that ran clean? Were they ever really in the race?
Regarding the Postal Service money I think there is a statute of limitations. They got some benefit from their money although even that benefit is now tarnished I don't think they deserve getting millions of dollars back, because they believed Armstrong and the drug tests of the day.
The other argument is that it was obvious that the sport had some drug usage issues and the Postal Service might have known what they were getting into.
In a larger sense I think just about all sports that involve money and some form of gambling all have issues related to drug usage. Steroids in baseball, hopping up horses, track and field events in the Olympics, and the use of needles to help football players suit up for big games.
Honesty is the best policy but I think it is only used after getting caught.
Comments
Post a Comment