In the weeks following formerprofessionalcyclist Lance Armstrong’s on-air doping confessions to Oprah Winfrey, his actions are still a major topic of discussion, not only in multiple media outlets but at Longwood University’s Blackwell Talks as well.
Dr. Eric Moore, associate professorofphilosophy, presented his talk entitled "WhyLanceArmstrong Didn’t Cheat: Sports Ethics and the Tour de France" on Feb. 11 in the Virginia Room of Blackwell Hall. This talk was part of the research seminars the College of Graduate and Professional Studies hosts each week.
Asforthefocusof Moore’s talk, “I don’t think [Armstrong] cheated, though he did use performance enhancingdrugs,”he clarified.
Moore informed the audience that the Tour de France, which began in 1903, was originally a publicity stunt to sell newspapers, and drugs were a part of the races since the beginning. He said the races “brutalized” athletes and did not have the pure intentions some may associate them with now.
Moore explained three types of blood doping commonly usedincyclingtoday: homologous blood doping, which is when an athlete gets “a transfusion of red blood cellsthatoriginallycome from a donor;” autologous blood doping, or when an athlete used their own red blood cells; and EPO, which boosts the blood’s oxygen transfer capacity.
While tests for homologous blood doping and EPO came about in 2000, there is still no direct testing for autologous blood doping. Moore said because of this, he does not think the rules against performanceenhancing drugs are fully enforceable and, therefore, does not view the use of these drugs as cheating.
Moore pointed out that doping is considered cheating simply because the World Anti-DopingAssociation (WADA) has defined it as cheating. He said the doping allegations against Armstrong would not hold up in court but set different standards for athletes that Armstrong and other cyclists agreed to under WADA’s Anti-Doping Code.
If there is any evidence of performance enhancing drugs in an athlete’s system, Moore said, they are “assumed to be guilty unless proven beyond unreasonable doubt.”
For the research portion of Moore’s talk, he focused on the social contract theory. The theory dictates that rules must be agreed upon, must be for the benefit of the participants and must be enforceable.
Games are “conventional, socially constructed realities” with both explicit and agreed upon rules, Moore said. Not all of the explicit rules are followed, but other athletes may view the breaking of the agreed upon rules as a more serious offense.
Moore said that the argument that doping shouldremainbanned because it harms athletes is “weak” because cycling is an “extremely dangerous sport” all its own.
“All you have to do is watch the first couple days of the Tour de France and watch all of the cyclists that go home because of crashes,” Moore said.
As an example, Moore recalled an incident at the TourdeFrancewherea journalist’s car rode on the bike course and contributed to a cyclist veering into a barbed wire fence.
According to Moore, “cyclistsacceptdopingas part of the sport” despite the fact that organizations like WADA and the U.S. Anti- Doping Association do not.
“Doping does not help one to provide sporting skills but simply provides a competitive advantage over those who do not dope,” said Moore.
Moore said better technology such as superior bikes, factors such as competitors’ oxygen levels from using oxygen tanks or living at high altitudes, and competitors’ training backgrounds are also performance enhancing but are not banned.
Moore also said that performance enhancing drugs like doping and EPO are not “typical street drugs” and are used purely to improve skills athletes already have. He said it is “paternalistic” for people to say athletes cannot use these drugs because they are bad for their health, and the aforementioned risks of cycling are harmful to their health as well.
Moore said even if others are not convinced of his argument, it is still under a social contract, and “the rules, if not enforceable, are useless.”
The doping bans are also unjust, Moore said, because many athletes are expected among each other to dope regardless of the rules, which “puts the athlete really in an unfair situation that’s far more coercive and bad for the athlete than just acknowledging that if we don’t have a way to enforce this ban, then we won’t have the ban.”
Overall, Moore said, “I also don’t think [performance enhancing drug use] should take away our adoration of what those athletes accomplished. They weren’t maybe doing what you thought they were doing, but what they were doing was pretty interesting and exciting.”
