This article explains the anger that has been expressed by Spanish and international sporting groups opposed to drug doping in sports at the decision by a Spanish judge to order the destruction of 211 bags of blood which the groups think might prove cheating by athletes in tennis, running, football and cycling, as well as in cycling, for doping athletes in which sport Dr. Eufemiano Fuentes has been found guilty by the Spanish court.
Until the scandal of his years of cheating and lying broke a year or so ago, I only ever had the vaguest idea who Lance Armstrong was and the significance of the yellow wristband that I saw people wearing now and then. When the ugly truths he had been concealing started to come out however, it was impossible not to learn a bit more - it was in the front page headlines of every newspaper I read every day for what seemed like months. The same with Tiger Woods, whom I had already heard of even before his somewhat less exciting scandal, involving only a bit, or a lot, of sex with women who were not his wife, became public knowledge. But sport doesn't really interest me - when my afternoon class yesterday (Tuesday) was looking for a neat example to explain the metaphor "game changer", which had come up in our reading, I wasn't much use. Happily, a couple of the students who are keen football fans came up with a very effective example.
I was, however, interested in a couple of issues unrelated to sport that the Tiger Woods and Lance Armstrong examples brought up. First, both of these sportsmen were and had been internationally famous athletes for many years. They were admired with what seemed to me almost religious devotion by probably millions of devoted fans, and those fans made both of them multi-millionaires via tournament wins and the massively lucrative advertising deals that they struck. And all the time the wonderful image of clean living, devoted family man, honest, and socially responsible benefactor was ... a lie. This made me think how easily large numbers of people can be fooled by clever media control and a little bit of manipulation. Thankfully, there was no law against free speech on the topics of Tiger Woods and Lance Armstrong, so the truth did finally come out, and they lost their respect, along with a fortune, as they deserved to lose them.
The examples of these two superstars of sport brought down to earth, from which they are both attempting to rise again, which I do sort of admire, also seem to me to relate to academic discussion: although almost everyone was wrong in their opinion and feelings towards Woods and Armstrong as decent family men, and honest citizens and all that, it was at least possible that knowledge on those two topics, Woods and Armstrong, could be had since free speech was allowed so that errors could be corrected, as they have been by the telling of truths that many perhaps did not want to hear, but which could not be silenced by oppressive censorship. This is why academics also insist on the need for free speech: where there is no free speech, knowledge is impossible. Where there is censorship, opinion is rendered worthless. And we do not want our opinions to be worthless because based on officially enforced ignorance.
Even in their downfalls, Lance Armstrong and Tiger Woods can be of service.
__________
Reference
When I first read about Lance Armstrong, I just wondered how he could pass the drug test and ended up with the winner for seven years.
ReplyDeleteHowever,for me, the good thing is that he finally accepts his fault. Generally speaking, it's a difficult situation for some people to show their gratitude by accepting the fault. I think that if someone has the courage of accepting the fault, it can be inferred that that person now wants to change to be a better man.
Yes, I thought the same. Not only is it one time but many time in seven years??? This might disrupt the cyclist quality test for next many years and spark frustration from the fans spurring decline in followers of the race.
DeleteI don't agree with Peace.
DeleteI think Armstrong would happily have gone on deceiving everyone into admiring, respecting and listening to his wonderful image if he could have. It was only a free press and society that protects free speech and critical thinking that forced him to admit, against his previous denials, the truth.
Had there been censorship on this topic, no one could ever have had their totally false beliefs and admiration for Armstrong corrected, and all of those sincere opinions of respect and love would have been worthless.
Free speech is a necessary condition for an opinion on a topic to have some worth.
And he would have continued to keep taking the money that came from his false image of being a wonderful, helping, concerned person.
DeleteAnd perhaps also useful to Wut are paragraphs 4m and especially 5, above, where I imply a definition of knowledge, or well-founded opinion, that might be worth considering, whether to support or negate. (I'm perfectly happy for you disagree with me - how else will my false beliefs be corrected?)
ReplyDelete