New Book

 


The theme of The Great Divide is that the populations of the democratic world, from Boston to Berlin, Vancouver to Venice, are becoming increasingly divided from within, due to a growing ideological incompatibility between modern liberalism and conservatism. This is partly due to a complex mutation in the concept of liberal democracy itself, and the resulting divide is now so wide that those holding to either philosophy on a whole range of topics: on democracy, on reason, on abortion, on human nature, on homosexuality and gay marriage, on freedom, on the role of courts … and much more, can barely speak with each other without outrage (the favorite emotional response from all sides). Clearly, civil conversation at the surface has been failing -- and that could mean democracy is failing.

This book is an effort to deepen the conversation. It is written for the non-specialist, and aims to reveal the less obvious underlying ideological forces and misconceptions that cause the conflict and outrage at the surface -- not with any expectation the clash of values will evaporate, but rather that a deeper understanding will generate a more intelligent and civil conversation.

As an aid to understanding, the book contains a handful of Tables directly comparing modern liberal and conservative views across a range of fundamental moral and political “issues” so that curious readers can answer the book’s main question: “Where Do You Stand?” An interesting result in testing this exercise has been the number of people who find they “think” one way, but “live” another.    

$21.95 pahardcover · 224 pages
9978-1594037641-January 2015

PRE-ORDER YOUR COPY AT
www.amazon.ca

 

Good Reading
« If This Be Not Evil, What Is? | Main | Thomas Nagel - A Major Defector From Darwinism »
Monday
Jan212013

Lance Armstrong and the Sport of Lying

           Here are some facts and personal, social, and moral opinions triggered by the Lance Armstrong affair, and drawn from my own fifty years of participation in sports, including ten years at the international level in track and field.    

*In the 1960’s and early 70s, things like drug doping, blood boosting, and performance enhancement were morally discouraged by most young athletes, but not explicitly banned or illegal. They were not even a topic of discussion. Taking money for competing in an amateur sport was considered a worse offence.

*When I was competing in track and field at age 18, my coach insisted, “drink a cup of tea” with breakfast, because caffeine was known to improve reaction times. We thought we were a lot smarter than athletes who didn’t drink their pre-meet tea. Caffeine was banned decades later.

*In the five years leading up to the 1968 Olympics, anabolic steroids – especially one marketed as “Danabol” -- were just entering athletic consciousness. Most of us had no idea what steroids were. But we learned that top international European athletes had been using Danabol for a decade. In most European nations it could be purchased over the counter without prescription. It was used by old people to build muscle strength for fighting osteoporosis. After a while, you were considered pretty ignorant, or just not interested in winning, if you weren’t trying steroids – especially for sprinting, throwing, and jumping events – any event where explosive power was wanted. The distance guys and gals were more interested in blood doping, living in low-oxygen tents to simulate altitude, and the like.

*It was not unusual at a major track meet to see some great athlete poking through a bag of drugs for something to help win. There was no shame. They weren’t hiding much, because very little was formally banned. I remember at a meet in Los Angeles in 1966 watching a decathlon athlete who went on to win a medal at the Mexico Olympics self-inject liquid steroids straight into his thigh muscles. He wasn’t hiding it. Any shame he feels today is retroactive.  

* Long before Lance came along the East Germans were considered the doping masters of the athletic world. My wife competed in track against some East German women in the early 1970’s.  She knew something was strange when she glanced at her six-foot competitors and saw their male-like shoulders and body hair where women don’t usually have it.  

*I have a close friend who raced as a Junior cyclist (under 18) in Canada in 1978, and he told me, “Billy, the coaches gave us uppers to race, and downers to sleep!”   

*When Canada’s Ben Johnson was caught doping at the Seoul Olympics in 1988, many of us scratched our heads: Doesn’t everyone know they’re all doping? It seemed pathetic that bumbling, inarticulate Ben took the fall for the whole sport. Johnson’s coach was Charlie Francis. I knew Charlie when he ran for Stanford twenty-two years prior. I am certain he was doping himself back then because he bragged about it, and he went from being a so-so sprinter to world class, in no time.

*Canada’s “Dubin Commission” released its report on Drug use in 1990, and most athletes were astonished, not at the report, but at the public naiveté as to the decades of doping that had preceded it, unnoticed.

* Point is that Lance Armstrong came into that “no-drugs-no-medals” world. It is pretty certain that almost every great rider against whom he had to compete was already using some kind of performance enhancement. Lance knew there was no chance without it. So he crossed the moral Rubicon.

 * What are we to conclude of a great cyclist who dopes to win the Tour de France seven times against other great cyclists who dope? Mostly that he was a better cyclist -- a very great cyclist -- and a smarter doper than his competitors, too (as a close friend once said of the Tour, and other like events, “They’re chemistry races”).  

* To speak plainly, Lance never had to face the choice of doping to win against a field of innocents. Never. He had to face the choice of doping to level the playing field. He had to choose to leave behind a primary moral reality (do not cheat) and enter a world governed by a secondary moral reality (we are all cheating, so it’s okay if you do, too). So he did. In a world where there are only cheaters, there is only one morality that matters: “shut up and keep lying.” And keep snoopers from the primary world out of your secondary world. He and many others did that for a long time. He was tested endlessly and never caught. And he won. And how! Who will ever forget “the Ulrich look” when he dared his toughest competitor to accelerate with him and drop the field? Ulrich couldn’t go. He just hung his head as Lance took off in a dramatic burst of pure cycling power. Lance was a sporting hero who gave us many such memorable moments for a lot of years. But what happened next says a lot about him, and a lot about his once-admiring audience -- ourselves.

* The central moral issue – about the cheater as well as his fans -- is not the drugs. It’s the fact that everyone is lying. The doper lies to himself. And the fans lie to themselves. They lie because although they say they care about drug use, they are not sincere. They want sports excitement, not a morality play. The cynical ones figure everyone is doing drugs anyway, so may the best man win. Just keep it out of my face. In other words, sports fans manage to suppress their own moral qualms about drugs, just like their heroes have done. They simply relegate their suspicions to the back-burner of fan-consciousness. It’s like cosmic background radiation. You know it’s there, but you can’t see it, so you don’t care. Until the hero is caught and you are called out along with him. Then it’s, like, hero-betrayal and moral inconvenience. How dare you force us to say we really care about the truth? We just wanted to see an amazing 100 meter race, an unbelievable touchdown, a victory climbing Alp D’Huez. And now we have to throw you under the bus and go find another hero.   

*That’s why it was such a dull show that Lance and Oprah mounted. Soft, faux-sincere questions, trying to get the big Dr. Phil melt-down confession. No chance. A few emotions were evinced. But mostly steely-eyed, calculating, lawsuit-avoiding answers. It was an international Morality Play.

         In medieval times, in order to keep the masses on the straight and narrow, there were travelling theatre groups that would go town to town with their wagons of players (now we have TV). Their plays were always allegorical, and the characters had names like Hero, Virtue, Sin, Charity, Innocence, Justice, Repentance, Love, and so on. They would act out major themes intended to teach the people a higher truth. The other night, Lance was the fallen Hero, Sin was already finished and offstage, Oprah was cast as Justice, the witnesses were either Innocence, or Repentance. The audience sat as Virtue. It was a performance by all.  

* What is to be done? Fifty years ago the greatest evil in sport was to lie that you were doing it for the love of the sport, when in fact you were taking money. Many athletes got banned for life for taking money. The problem with all professional sport – and this was always the main moral distinction between the amateur athlete and the pro -- is that there is no way to know if a pro athlete really, truly, deeply loves the sport enough to do it for its own sake, or if he is doing it just for the money. I suspect it’s the money. I don’t think Ben Johnson, or Lance Armstrong, or Michael Jordan, or Tiger Woods – any pr athletes -- would play their sports the way they do for a minute without the millions. So we have the money lie, and the doping lie. A lot of athletes live with both lies.

          I once heard a libertarian philosopher’s solution to the lying problem: let them do what they want.       For every sport, offer two categories: Category A, you must be drug-free and be doing the sport only because you love it. No money can change hands. Category B, you can be paid whatever you can command, and put into your body whatever you wish. All will be out in the open. You can watch whatever category you want. Personally, I would watch the drug-free, unpaid athletes any day against the rich guys in the chemistry races with the needles in their legs.

           It’s not the drugs that are the problem. It’s the lying. Because anyone who refused to lie would never have taken the drugs.

 

          

Bookmark and Share 6c6b4ce387d091030fe56e9d3194523a

Reader Comments (9)

Unfortunately, many women body builders take anabolic steriods and male hormones to get bigger muscles thus they don't really have the true female body form!. Another fine essay here Mr.Gairdner.
January 23, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterLarry
Finally, a column that makes sense instead of all the mainstream media breathlessness. So no one in professional football, basketball, soccer, hockey, boxing, UFC is a cheat, since the media don't report on them getting caught for having taken any kind of performance-enhancing drug. And of course no HS/college students in all those sports and more are taking PEDs, because they love their sports and don't see them as potential money-making avenues.

Are we so blind as a society that we can't see that, if an amateur wants to make it, he (she?) must perforce take PEDs?
January 24, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterRich
Yes Rich. The days of true amateurism are long past. One of the few places where we can still find it is in Masters sport of all kinds. Masters track and field and masters cross-country skiing, for example, have countless practitioners. Although temptation lurks: at the Buffalo World Masters T & F championships a decade ago, a 75 year old man was disqualified for ... taking steroids!
January 25, 2013 | Registered CommenterWilliam Gairdner
Thank you Mr. Gairidner. Our dominate culture is indeed lie based. I would add the political lie, the academic lie, the racial lie, and the scientific lie to the list.
January 27, 2013 | Unregistered Commenterwilburgalli
Lance not only lied and cheated. He systematically destroyed the lives of those that told the truth. The man is evil and mean spirited. He definately deserves what he has coming.
January 28, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterKat Bailey
I am not sure if it a blessing or a curse to have trust as my personal core. I simply trust first and suffer the loss of trust in a person or idea as my own fault. Most of the time I just move on. Sometimes I do not. If I were hurt by this man personally, I would make sure he is given the opportunity to experience himself as a useless part of humanity. Evil and mean spirited is out there to give. A total loss of respect is in order. Perhaps some legal action from his sponsors for accepting money under false pretenses is in order. Simply ignoring him may also work. I do know the words, "The man is evil and mean spirited" applies to a whole lot of men.
January 28, 2013 | Unregistered Commenterwilburgalli
on the other hand, lance was a lad that came from nothing and made it big. he was rewarded by a system that entices people to cheat to make money. easy to moralize about if you come from money, not so easy if you grew up poor. after all, as bill said, he wasn't cheating, but leveling the playing field among those he competed with for the win. the guy is an american legend, representing everything the us stands for, including deceit, greed, individualism and second chances. he's a product of the american spirit, a true entrepreneur who exploited his own body to make as much cash as possible in the limited amount of time he had available do so as an athlete. hell, he even started a charity to round out that american image once he made a fortune. how noble is that? this man gives back! it all goes together, greed, deceit, second chances and charity. all we need is him running for governor and his career is complete. after all, we have a government that lies to invade countries, presidents who cheat their wives and body builders who run states. does anyone believe schwarzenegger got that big on eggs and pasta? why not a disgraced doped up millionaire cyclist to run texas. i'd vote for him, he rocks by holding a mirror into the face of us decadent americans, the funny thing is, in the end, we don't even care about any of this or we forget.
February 13, 2013 | Unregistered Commenterm. hari
Hello M. Hari -

Your post reeks of cynicism, and most of us understand why. I maybe naive, but the last line of my blog still rings true to me: athletes who refuse to lie would not take the drugs. So the problem is thinking that lying is not a problem. In a minute I am going to post the link to the truly inspiring Dr. Carson speech. He may be naive, too. but I believe we have a duty to be optimists.
February 13, 2013 | Registered CommenterWilliam Gairdner
Perhaps they should just throw in the towel and doa way with drug testing altogether.
April 15, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterAndy

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.