I watched a great movie the other night about the Lance
Armstrong fiasco. Called The Program
it summarized the professional life of Armstrong and the US Postal cycling team
and their incredible run of victories. Lance was the star and the
crew rode for him to make sure he won in the end. It was a sobering look at
competition and the lengths that athletes will go to win. Winning is everything
to certain people and when cheating is the price of victory far too many engage
in it. Survey after survey proves this to be true and especially in sports
where the margin of victory is so slim.
There are two parts to the Lance Armstrong saga crucial to understanding how he got away with doping and being a ‘squeaky
clean’ spokesman for cancer research. Journalist
David Walsh, of the Sunday Times, who covered cycling and wrote about Armstrong
before he became famous, was persona non-grata once he accused the American of
being 'on' something. Second, the irresistible story of a man beating
testicular cancer to win the Tour de
France became a sponsors dream. By dream of course I mean a huge payday for
a lot of companies, not to mention top billing and top money for a somewhat
obscure race. American Greg LeMond had won the Tour in the early nineties but
the tour had never been a big deal in the US and only a slightly bigger deal in
Europe.
Armstrong, who is played by Ben Foster, develops emotionally and physically from an average racer into a seven time champion. Movies like this have a
built in advantage of not telling the story so much as watching the transformation of a person into something unrecognizable, an inflated version of the celebrity we think we know. We know the story. We know the man. We know every
crooked and concocted lie, every myth about the daring Texan with superhuman
will. This film doesn't engender compassion from the viewer for
Armstrong. Nor does it give him a pass for being just another biker enhancing performance in a sport known for dopers. Although there are scenes that show his humanity and good will, this film is a warning against hubris.
Armstrong isn’t a politician seeking to rule a kingdom or a
business owner trying to buy out his competition. We don’t take him seriously
as a powerful man because he just rides a bike after all, what is the harm in
that? The blueprint for how he succeeded though is textbook hubris. From the
intimidation campaigns against those who accused him of being a cheat, to his
manipulation of the press and the sponsors who couldn’t get enough of this
story. The press doesn’t come off well as a character in this, really no one
does except the Times writer, Mr. Walsh, who stood against the legal onslaught
Lance directed towards him. Floyd Landis
is the tragic figure of the whole affair. If the events of the movie accurately
depict history than Landis is the moral character brought low by a failing, an
immoral charge for which he is swiftly punished.
I do remember Landis winning the Tour right after Armstrong
retired; he tested positive for high levels of testosterone, an indication of
doping. There were rumblings of US postal cycling being full of cheats from the
European press and especially the Sunday
Times which had the goods on Lance from the beginning. By the time Floyd
Landis won the gig was up on American racers. The evidence against the
Livestrong spokesman was piling up no matter how much he denied it, threatened his
accusers with lawsuits, and challenged the integrity of the reporters. It ended
so ignominiously with the Oprah interview which showed Lance for the
self-absorbed athlete few had really seen.
Ben Foster looks and sounds like Lance Armstrong so much
that the camera often shows live footage of the tour champion spliced with film
shots of the actor on his bike. His portrayal of the professional cyclist as a
‘hungry’ competitor moves the film from an uphill slog during his cancer
recovery to fast downhill ride through the winning stages. One great shot in
the movie’s climax is of Lance in his home standing atop the steps excoriating
his enemies, cursing old friends who accuse him of cheating, and threatening to
destroy anyone not loyal to him. The camera shows him high up looking down, a
man in control of his kingdom. This is hubris personified. We see Lance Armstrong
as an arrogant bully who is competitive to the core and has no concern for
ethics or truth. The scenes where he is giving motivational speeches are equally creepy
because although he looks genuine and truthful we know how the story
ends.
We all bought into the myth of Armstrong and the Livestrong
motto. The lesson from the whole sordid affair is that healthy skepticism of
power in all forms is a good posture for anyone. Don’t discount a report or an
accusation because of fear that the truth could ruin something you hold dear.
Great stories about individuals overcoming horribly tragic events are all
around us, when someone is lionized for it tread softly and don’t ignore
warning signs. Armstrong’s record win right after cancer treatments should have
raised eyebrows in the sports writing community more than it did. The warning
signs were there if one just looked. This is the thrust of the film; writers
and even sponsors knew but wouldn’t say because it was good for the sport. It
sold papers and magazines and generated interest in cycling. It sold bracelets
and generated money for cancer research, who wants to stop that?
There is a parallel with the rise and fall of Lance
Armstrong and the housing crisis of 2008, my brother pointed this out. Both
situations grew up under the ‘watchful’ eyes of those who were supposed to
monitor the events and make rulings on the participants. Cheaters never got
reported because it was easier to look away and make money by ignoring the
deception. Hopefully the doping scandal that Armstrong orchestrated leads to a
cleaner sport in the future, if only slightly. I am afraid that more
sophisticated methods of enhancing performance are already being used. Athletes
will always seek to find an advantage in sports that includes drugs; sadly the
monitors are always one step behind.
No comments:
Post a Comment