Lance Strongarm: Hero or Villain?

or in my case, literally eating spoonfulls of instant coffee

Hah, I'm guilty of cheating just like that in college, too! Those grounds tasted so bitter, but I was willing to do anything -- even things that would harm my body -- in order to do well in school.

That said, I am becoming persuaded by Bill's (and Michael's) logic -- it may not be wrong to use steroids in the moral sense (it may be in your rational self-interest), but the breach of contract from doing so puts Lance in a dilemma wherein he has to adopt the kind of character required in order to engage in intentional duplicity.

People become bad people when they do that (if they do it habitually).

Ed

Post 21

Monday, January 28, 2013 - 7:40pm

Fred and Bill are arguing about different things. Fred has made excellent points about the enormous hypocrisy involved in sports where steroids are involved and about the ignorance regarding this and the nature of steroids themselves. Bill is, as usual, crystal clear in targeting Lance Armstrong's repeated choices to behave dishonestly, his cheating, and his other deplorable behaviors.
------------

The only area where they have a real disagreement is regarding this question: In the situation where an entire industry has a significant portion of its practices built on lies and hypocrisy such that the only way a person can pursue their career in that industry requires that they cheat, and almost everyone else in that career line is also cheating, and it would be obvious to anyone taking a clear look at this industry that cheating going on and is required, then is that cheating justified? Armstrong would have been right to lie and cheat if it were an entirely government run industry, but it isn't. It is private and people join and participate by choice. Bill wins on that one, especially because as he points out, it is a contractual issue.

The whole thing is unfair, it is wrong, and irrational, but it stills meets the test that my Mother used to put in front of me: "Two wrongs don't make a right."
------------

The title of the thread is about Hero or Villain. If someone is heroic in nearly every aspect of their life, then it is easy to say they are a hero. But it gets harder when they have been heroic in some cases, like Armstrong's battle against cancer and the extraordinary records he set - earned, as Fred has pointed out, by effort, not just steroids. It is like the other thread where people don't want to see the heroic achievements of Martin Luther King because his political views included things like support of the welfare state, affirmative action, etc. I'd say that whenever there is some significant questions about someone's character or their behaviors, then you don't call THEM a hero, but it shouldn't erase from their history any heroic acts they achieved.

It is logical, right and just to see heroic behavior wherever it is, whoever it is from; but more important, it is good for us psychologically, spiritually, emotionally to be more open to that which is heroic.

Post 22

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 - 8:15am

I don't see the ethical obligation for Lance to obey a rule that by design and implementation, he is not in the least bit expected to obey by the authorities who impose it in their own financial best interests. A rule that, in implementation, in a world in which the incentives to take risks are forever raised at the same time, has as its sole effect the removal of licensed doctors from the arena, who would help him manage those risks intelligently.

The removal of those doctors is precisely the purpose of the 'ban' -- in fact, its only observable real affect. The consequences of that affect are ever more abuse of steroids by the gladiators whose increased levels of performance are being sold in those arenas. That corresponds exactly to the increased financial interests of those selling the spectacle. By 'banning' the legal use of steroids(after 4 decades of legal and continuous use in sports) the only observable impact is the absence of doctors and suddenly freakishly large HS, college, and pro athletes. Who are we kidding? Ourselves, at the most.

The proof of this is the absurd nature of testing programs, carefully designed to test only during the season, when everybody with even a lick of sense knows is not when steroids are primarily used. That, to me, is proof enought that the 'ban' is a complete sham. The authorities do not want to inhibit the use of steroids, they want to enhance the use of steroids, which is what happens when the doctors(only) are chased away by the phony-baloney ban.

Recognizing that might have my Objectivist card forcefully removed from my wallet, along with my secret decoder ring, but please, don't take twenty milliSeconds worrying about the consequences of that because I sure don't. I'm not a Tribalist Uber Alles, even and especially jarringly an Objectivist Tribalist Uber Alles. Jesus; leglifting by self-declared Objectivists is no prettier than when any other mob tries it. Next thing you know, someone here is going to throw a poll and let pure democracy break out. If that defines modern Objectivism, then please, I've long burned that card.

It is Lance Armstrong's life and risks. It is he sweating the sweat and doing the reps and taking the risks. That parasites have jury rigged 'rules' in sports to shift even more of the risk onto the gladiators and accept only more of the rewards in return is not something I'm ever going to honor as part of any ethically respectable process. It deserves only contempt.

He and others should have obeyed the rules? If the rules were designed to actually be effectively obeyed, and were effectively enforced, then not a single one of us here would have ever heard of the sport, its promoters would not be making millions off of it, and *that* is exactly the purpose of the so called rules.

This has been insightful; it is clear how a naive belief in rules as rules first and foremost can be used to fleece others.

regards,
Fred'77

Post 23

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 - 8:25am

It was a rule that all Jews turned themselves in to the authorities.

Was it 'cheating' to disobey such a rule?

The principle is the same; Lance Armstrong's life and risks belong to him. He is being turned into an enemy of the local state because he's had to lie about living *his* life in an illegal attic.

He lied about that. He cheated the rules.

Do those rules have any ethical basis, either in principle or especially in practice? Because blind fealty to 'the rules' is clearly not automatically a principle that is consistent with individual liberty.

People keep using the word 'cheating' around here in exactly the same sense that Ann Frank's family 'cheated' the local rules.

Steroids are not 'cheating.' That is not how steroids work. They are banned, by others -- who make money out of the impact of that ban, that sheds yet more risk onto others.

Being a Jew in Nazi Germany was not 'cheating.' It was banned, and hiding was against the rules.

So I have yet to see the ethical argument here.

regards,
Fred'77

Post 24

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 - 8:33am

The tread title asks if it was heroic for the family of Ann Frank to defy the local rules and ignore a ban on issues concerning only their individual lives living in that attic.

Yes, I'd say it was damned heroic.

And those yet calling the use of steroids 'cheating' show only their monumental ignorance on how steroids do what they do.

Is this a self serving rationalization? Bull. I never took steroids when they were banned. I did take steroids. I know damn well what they do and how they do it, what the risks are, and especially, what they don't do(turn you into a Superman by simply swallowing pills.)

Steroids use is not 'cheating.' Steroids use is 'banned.' The reasons for that ban are important. The ethical basis for the ban is important.

I also took vitamins, protein shakes, and all kinds of augmentation to my diet. Who didn't? Who doesn't still, at modern levels of performance?

Who is making the money off of the risks that modern athletes take with their own lives at today's levels of performance? Who is providing the incentives for them to do so? And who benefits when they do so without access to doctors?

Post 25

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 - 8:52am

The ban on steroids in sports is inexorably linked to the case of Lyle Alzedo.

Lyle Alzedo died of a brain tumor, and is convinced his early death was due to his lifelong abuse of steroids.

However...nobody in the medical community, including his own doctors, believe that steroids had anything to do with his brain tumor.

SOmetimes people get brain tumors. Even people who take steroids. Even people who take vitamins.

So with some irony... the genesis of this ban is tied to the expert medical opinion of a guy who played football in the NFL and was involved with pro wrestling for a while.

Emotional, but nonsense.

Unless there is a way to take advantage of all the uninformed emotion surrounding this issue and turn it into a real moneymaker for the flabby middle aged middlemen riding gladiators like ponies...

Which is exactly what was done.

We are such ... dupes, collectively.

A final irony; what drug is often prescribed and given to cancer patients?

Anabolic steroids have several legitimate medical uses.
Testicular cancer often requires the removal of the testes in men. After surgery, these men are prescribed oral anabolic steroids to replace the testosterone that their bodies are no longer able to make. This maintains their secondary sexual characteristics.(1-3)

Adolescent males with pituitary malfunction are treated with injectable anabolic steroids when they reach the appropriate age for puberty. Anabolics given for four to six months in the proper dosing schedule cause the growth spurt and development of secondary sexual characteristics.(2-4)

After certain kinds of surgery and cancer, the patient
experiences loss of muscle tissue. Anabolic steroids are used in such cases, with exercise and diet, to build up muscle tissue.(2,3,5)

I guess we would say they are cheating death.

regards,
Fred'77

Post 26

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 - 9:08am

Tygart's lament, from Merlin's link:

�It�s simply not true. The access they had to inside information, to how the tests work, what tests went in place at what time, special access to the laboratory. He was on an entirely different playing field than all the other athletes, even if you assume all the other athletes had some access to doping products.�

Who is he indicting here? Lance Armstrong...or the 'authorities' running the sham... by riding LA like a bicycle. Providing 'inside information'... from who or what?

'On how the tests work...what tests went in place at what time.'

... "even if you assume all the other athletes had some access to doping products."

Well then. For a moment there, I thought this was all about cheating with performance enhancing drugs. One of the lesser shams is just whining about his role in the gladiator show, far from the doctors who have been banned from the enterprise...

That enterprise was benefitting from LA, Inc.

The 'ban' is a clear farce, and has turned athletes into pawns if they want to play at all.

regards,
Fred

Post 27

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 - 9:42am

Fred,

I don't see the ethical obligation for Lance to obey a rule that by design and implementation, he is not in the least bit expected to obey by the authorities who impose it in their own financial best interests.

The fact that an agreement is in the financial interests of one or more of the parties is a good thing, right? Because the authorities are rewarded financially certainly shouldn't matter in this argument. Capitalism is good. Money is good.

If, as you say, the authorities have created and are running a system that is built on a double standard, that is a sad thing, but it doesn't change the ethical obligations of an individual who approaches that organization. If what the organization is doing is wrong, should the individual voluntarily join in the wrong doing? If Armstrong wanted to pursue his passion of cycling, was he willing to associate with that organization? And if so, was he willing to engage in the double standard? That was the predicament he was in.

A person can imagine different levels of wrong behavior: violating the rights of another would be the worst because it undercuts the entire system - it replaces reason and choice with force/fraud/theft. The next worst category might be any form of self-destruction, like substance abuse, or dishonest behavior committed over a period of time because that changes one's character and decreasing ones self-esteem. The least offensive, but still wrong would be matters of etiquette. If it could be shown that the authorities knowingly engaged in this double standard, then there was no valid contract, and Armstrong would not be guilty violating their rights, but he still participated in an on-going deception. That's how I'd see it.

I don't think he should have joined in on the double standard and hypocrisy because I don't think it is in a person's best interests to mire themselves in the dirt of deceptions negative effects in exchange for trophies, endorsements, or the glory of a first place versus some other place. Too much of sports is focused not on achievement by the person, for the person; but rather achievement for the sake of being washed in the second-hand glory of the crowds.

As to the rules... They are awful and should be changed. And your question about when we obey rules and when we don't.... that's legitimate.

Please don't burn your Objectivst card, Fred, we are allowed to have disagreements -- (and tell me where I get my decoder ring, nobody told me about those!)
----------

Rules made by governments, enforced with guns, that violate individual rights - such as those against the Jews by Nazi Germany, are a different thing altogether, than a private organization putting on sports events. No individual, no organization and no rule directed the initiation of physical force against Armstrong. This organization offered him a path, a structure, towards the pursuit of his passions, and the possibility of fame and fortune. That is quite different than being "offered" a trip to the gas chamber at gun point.
----------

I'm going to bow out of this thread at this point, out of respect for the passion that Fred feels for this issue and the fact that I'm not much interested in sports of any kind. So, have fun everyone, play fair, and no polls - please.

Post 28

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 - 10:43am

Steve:

The fact that an agreement is in the financial interests of one or more of the parties is a good thing, right?

That is to equate pimps with free market capitalists based on a flawed principle, and I'm sure that isn't your intent.

What I am passionate about in this issue is the ethics of risk shed onto others, preying on their passion to take risks with their own lives, being pimped by pimps who set obviously sham rules designed to do exactly what they do; remove doctors from the arena and encourage the gladiators to take additional risks in pursuit of the additional incentives-- including 'inside information' on how to avoid the sham drug testing, the pony show for the public put on by the 'authorities' claiming to administer a 'ban.'

Steroids were perfectly legal for decades in sports. The use of steroids impacts nobody except those who take the steroids, period. The risks are all theirs. The enabled sweat and effort is all theirs. When these individuals pursue their passion in life, and others with financial interests far removed insert themselves with 'rules' designed to maximize their own reward by increasing the risk taken by others(exactly the impact of these 'bans')then the principle we are condoning when we acquiesce to(and even, applaud) the sham is not one I want any part of.

The bottom line for me on this issue is, it is and always has been Lance Armstrong(as placeholder for gladiator in an arena showered with incentives)who has taken the risks, done the reps, and sweated the sweat, no matter what shenanigans are going on in the stands and side streets with side bets, 'rules' , stock future plays, fantasy league side bets, and pony shows.

When and where is it ever safe in our culture to concede dominion over that which is our lives?

regards,
Fred

Post 29

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 - 12:58pm

Fred,

Yes, a pimp is a free market capitalist, if he is working in one of the areas where prostitution is legal, like some of the counties in Nevada. And, I guess there could be pimps who took advantage of there 'employees,' and then turned right around and gave all of their money away because they were very altruistic... But that is a weird concept and it doesn't change the fact that both parties in the Lance Armstrong discussion were in it for their own best interests - both of them sought financial gains, and my point was that there is nothing wrong with trying to make money.

We agree that steroids should be fully legal. We agree that there is a double standard in play in sports regarding steroids. We agree that most people are ignorant of all of this. We agree that many fans, and sports associations, and sports related businesses are getting a ride on the effort and talent of the performer. That is the system we live under right now. Because of that when you make your choice to participate in some part of this system, your consequences may include unfair results and you may be put in a position where you have to choose between remaining an honest person, or staying with a system that has deception built in.
-----------------

Risk shed onto others comes in two basic categories. For example, when the crony capitalists get special laws that let them keep profits, but get bailed out when they take a loss... that is risk shed onto the taxpayers who did not agree to that deal - it is done by government, and it is done at gun point and that is a whole category by itself.

Another, and very different category is one where two parties to a deal have different amounts of bargaining power, and the one with the greater amount of bargaining power can choose to shed some risk onto the other party and the market place will let him get away with it. For example, if I were to rent an apartment, and there were few vacancies in my town, I might find one I like where the owner will only rent to me if I pay an exceptionally high security fee, and meet an exceptionally high standard for credit worthiness and look especially good in my rental history. That landlord a lot of his risk onto me because the market place lets him - and I accept it because it is hard to find what I want without paying extra (that added risk I pick up).

Another example is in the arts. Musicians often carry all the risk in attempting to get a deal with a record label. There were, and maybe still are, vanity presses (same for authors) where you have to pay them to produce your tunes (or books) - yet if it makes any money at all, the publishers will be in there for a huge cut. The same is true for would-be inventors that want a professional outfit to help them take their idea to market. And yet another example are venture capitalists - they take what they see is a big risk with an unknown business proposal and in exchange they take a lion's share - shedding the risk onto the would-be entrepreneur. Insurance companies shed risk as their business - they look at the actuarial numbers and know that it isn't a risk if they get such and such a rate, while the insured is paying a fixed, known amount to shed his risk.

All of those examples of risk shedding are voluntary because the government (or someone else with a gun) isn't involved. They are business deals, or business to consumer deals, but they aren't forced on anyone. If a person joins up to shed risk, or to be the one who accepts more risk - voluntarily - it is free association and it is a good deal (in principle).

Lance Armstrong joined a hypocritical structure that runs under a double standard in a society that has uninformed views of steroids and he ended up getting shafted by the very double standard that he knew was there to start with. There are only two outcomes in his position as the worlds best in this sport where steroid use is rampant:
1.) He is a never outed publicly, and gets to enjoy the fruits of victory he earned, or
2.) He gets outed and loses much of his fan adulation, ability to continue, and future income.
Those choices were there when he started, they were the result of where he is now.

Lance Armstrong, because his passions are in an area of our culture that is infected with these double standards, had the following choices before he made his first race:
1.) Find another area that he could be passionate about, or
2.) Abide by the rules even though they are unfair and stupid,
3.) Organize the cyclists to start their own association that was fair, honest, and advocated use of any performance enhancers that the medical community or a cyclist's doctor didn't disagree with.
4.) Or, he could give the culture dominion over his life and take a chance that he could pretend to accept the rules, while in fact violating them and hope not be outed.

And like you said, it isn't safe to grant dominion over life others... and that's what Armstrong did.
----------------

I see the ugly side of those who are feeding on artists, sports figures, inventors, entrepreneurs, and anyone else who is driven by his passion. All I can say is that our culture arises from our values and until we are a more enlightened society, those values will be less than perfect, and in there are scummy people who see the passion of others as a lever to pry more money out of their pockets, and to ride their dreams and passions for more money than they would deserve in a rational society.

Post 30

Wednesday, January 30, 2013 - 8:31am

Steve:

I accept your 'he sold his soul to the devil' argument.

A more principled stance by LA would have been to ride his bicycle for pleasure, and race only against his own stopwatch.

By the same token, hermits in our world, as it is, are the only truly ethical actors.

We all, with our consent and participation, support an imperfect government, work for unethical companies and clients, and cash their checks, because we are unwilling to be hermits and would die waiting for utopia and universal enlightenment.

When I was a young man, barely five years out of grad school, my employer, a then $2B capital equipment manufacturer, insisted that I cheat a customer by faking a performance test(on a several tens of thousand horsepower piece of oil platform equipment destined for North Sea gas reinjection far away.) I'd just recently married. No kids. No mortgage even. So I was able to tell them to shove it. It was my first and last job working for someone else. It was 1983.

I don't know if I would have done the same thing if I'd had kids at the time, and a mortgage. Probably not, because I couldn't really have done that under those circumstances.

But if I had agreed, under compulsion, would the primary evil have been my acceptance of those terms, or would it have been the actions of those who initiated the compulsion?

regards,
Fred
(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 1/30, 8:34am)

Post 31

Wednesday, January 30, 2013 - 9:27am

Surely this must have been posted before, but if not, enjoy.

All Drug Olympics.

Sam

Post 32

Wednesday, January 30, 2013 - 9:42am

Sam:

Ha! I love SNL, and The Onion.

But for me what distinguishes good humor from really great humor is the degree of truth underlying it.

That looks like a perfectly accurate depiction of the view of steroids held by folks who have never been within a million miles of steroids or a weight room.

Because it's the knees that shear off like that, not the arms.

regards,
Fred

Post 33

Wednesday, January 30, 2013 - 10:20am

Fred,

The hermit business you brought up is interesting. Morality is black and white, but we have to live in a culture where we associate with organizations that have a degree of corruption. How corrupt? Are we associating with a corrupt part, or a non-corrupt part? Most important, I think, is what is our side of the interaction?

Be a hermit, or be corrupt, is of course, you exaggerating a bit to make your point, but it is an area I don't thing we talk about enough in principle - and only deal with as specific examples.

I remember a story that Branden used to tell. There was a conference or debate where he, a group of Objectivist students and some other speakers went to lunch. At one point, one of the speakers, who was a socialist, asked for the salt, and Nathaniel passed it to him... horrifying some of the students. They saw it as sanctioning or supporting evil. I would have passed the salt, but only because the guy advocated as opposed to enforcing socialist practices. Meaning that someone like Obama would have to get his own salt. But would I be overreacting? Passing the salt wouldn't further socialism, and wouldn't my only obligation be clarity in my opposition to his policies - not his putting salt on his food? How do we define that line?

You wrote about where you chose to quit a job because the company tried to get you to fake a test, and you wondered if you'd have quit had the level of compulsion been greater (you had kids, a mortgage, etc.):

...would the primary evil have been my acceptance of those terms, or would it have been the actions of those who initiated the compulsion?

Going to an extreme, and changing the situation to where it was someone with a gun demanding that you fake the test, then you literally would have had no choice and would not been complicit in any evil. But as long as someone has a choice, it is only a question of how difficult it is maintain integrity. The more compulsion, then the greater the integrity and the self-esteem boost that comes from resisting it. And the less compulsion present, then the greater the hit to the self-esteem for folding.

Some kind of formula for employee in that spot would have the costs of going along with the faking and the degree of evil being done if the faking were to happen as to the two factors, but it is hard to do estimates because of the issue of motivation. How much is the employee engaging in evasion, how much of violation of his personal code of values is this? The moral issue is black and white, but the psychological measures and effects will vary from person to person and situation to situation.

People might want to give the employee a break, because he suffers costs and that is a form of compulsion, while the company makes profits out of the faking. But much of that comes out of our cultures bias against making money. The company is cheating their client in addition to the faking itself, and they are initiating the action, the employee is trying to keep what he earned, but he is also violating the integrity of his profession... so, maybe the company executives are slightly more guilty, but I don't see one side getting called "primary" if doing so diminishes the guilt of the other side. This is the kind of evil that can only happen if both participate.

One final point... There is a sense in which discussing any single issue, like this one, is almost dropping a context. When we take an action that will either assert our integrity, or compromise it, that action will be part of, or in opposition to, a personal trend. Our character isn't made of the results of a single action. To grasp the importance of this point imagine an employee that at this point in time caves in and fakes the test, then go on to imagine this continuing as a recurring pattern for decades. Now imagine his twin brother under very similar circumstances quitting, reaffirming his integrity and his sense of himself as an honorable person. And he too continues down his path, one of integrity. After a couple of decades imagine the kind of man he has become by acting in this way, by strengthening those 'muscles' and see in your mind's eye a comparison of the two men after those decades. That is the full context since we do plan on living beyond the short time frame of a single act and since it wouldn't work to pretend that each act can be decided as if it were an exception that had no effect on the future.

Post 34

Thursday, January 31, 2013 - 7:54am

Steve:

But much of that comes out of our cultures bias against making money.

Yes, a kind of indiscriminate blanket bias. Rand clearly had a selective bias-- she suggested there was another set of principles involved. She argued that it was important how money was made. It was hardly a subtle point in her art; it was the entire point of Atlas Shrugged.

James Taggert and his government wooing cronies made money in Atlas Shrugged. They were hardly Rand's heros for doing so.

In this story of Lance Armstrong, who is making the effort, and who is riding the backs of others making effort?

There came a time in AS when Rearden violated the rules by cheating, selling steel to prohibited clients. The nation was cheated. And, screw that nation.

regards,
Fred

Post 35

Thursday, January 31, 2013 - 6:52pm

Fred,

In this story of Lance Armstrong, who is making the effort, and who is riding the backs of others making effort?

Well, let me first fall back on that distinction between free association and forced association. In this story, neither Armstrong or the cycling associations initiated physical force, or theft, and from that perspective no one is forcing the other expend labor. Because this whole business is one that arises in a free market, there should be a degree of parity and reciprocation in the exchanges. Clearly the physical effort, and heroic quantities, and qualities, are exclusively from Armstrong. But for him to make very large sums of money, and fame in this career there must be organizations, races, media, subsidiary industries wanting their products endorsed, fans who want to follow but need the media to publish, and the organizations to manage the events. It is a whole commercial ecosystem and without it, the only pedaling Lance would be doing is to and from some mundane job. The great distortion here is in the way the steroids are treated... the hypocrisy. That distortion with its attendant hypocrisy in the organizations, the players, and the fans is the fly in the soup. Without it, and with an informed market, that commercial ecosystem would be much sweeter.

The point about Rand focusing on how money is earned is well taken. Our culture does has a bias against making money (camels through the eye of needle and all of that... and Marxist class warfare to boot), and then they get hypocritical about it being okay for some to make money and not others (everyone is happy if their favorite rock star or movie star has millions, but don't like it a businessman does), but we Objectivists want to see a system where productivity, and honest effort are rewarded ad cheating isn't.

Lance Armstrong is no Hank Rearden :-) And the government used a gun to enter Rearden's business - changing all the rules ex post facto, which isn't the same as Armstrong choosing to take a chance that he could use steroids but wouldn't be outed. Do you really see those two as moral equivalents?

Post 36

Friday, February 1, 2013 - 3:37am

"Lance Armstrong is no Hank Rearden."

Since it's out there, let's say he's no Roark, either. (Roark would be a better example, since he, like Armstrong, was entering a competition of free association, and the governmental factors were in the background, unlike the case with Reardon, where they were up front)

...comparing this to Cortland Homes: Roark "cheated" by using a proxy, then blew up the buildings, and, in a civil case, was found guilty and had to pay restitution.

I'd like to throw in, here, that Armstrong and the case of Roark are different because Roark's stand was a civil disobedience case of sorts, in order to bring a point to light, while Armstrong worked in the shadows, and stayed there. (It could be argued that Roark may not have initially wanted to get caught, and open the door to a favorable comparison for Armstrong, or that Roark was wrong to do so, and open up Roark to the Rand-haters to pile on...). At any rate, "Evasion Is NOT Resolution"
(Edited by Joe Maurone on 2/01, 3:43am)

(Edited by Joe Maurone on 2/01, 3:44am)

Post 37

Friday, February 1, 2013 - 5:11am

Steve:

re: "Because this whole business is one that arises in a free market"

You say there are no issues of free or forced association in this case. In the sense that Roark didn't need to be an architect, or Rearden a steelmaker, that is true.

Nobody forced either of them to be either. They could have been hairstylists.

I think what you are saying is that LA was always free to be a professional hairstylist with a different set of rules and incentives, nobody forced him to be a professional bicyclist. He rolled into that pony show freely.

Is there any profession that isn't true for? Hairstylists could choose to work at a tanning salon, after all.

My once employer paid my salary. While under their employ, they asked me to cheat a customer. That was my job. I refused. I cheated my employer, in a sense. I ignored his rules. In that instance, I didn't know it was a condition of my employment; my employer never asked me when I accepted employment, "Will you be willing to lie to and otherwise cheat our customers, endangering lives for profit?" When I found out that was a requirement, I gave my notice. LA, we can assume, knew about the ban going into his chosen profession. He could have been a hairstylist.

He freely associated with the bicycling association and its stated rules and incentives, which to the public present a facade of banning steroids, but in practice, as evidenced by the nature of the testing, as evidenced by providing inside information to LA (or who they choose to advance the marketing of their sport ) about the testing designed to assist his avoiding the test, exposes the financial incentives of that bicycling association having this ban as complete sham, and for all you or I know, Lance Armstrong knew that as well going in.

The 'authorities' clearly wanted LA to take performance enhancing drugs and assisted him in that pursuit, banning only his free association with doctors driven from the arena while doing so, counter to his interests(no access to the restraining influence of doctors while increasing the risks he took in response to their incentives), but advantageous to them(they and the sport benefit from the risks taken by LA.) Within the tiny universe of their arena based enterprise, the arena that LA freely rolled into, the risks and effort made are all by LA, it is his life, his risks, and his results.

His also doping team mate was not complaining that LA was doping; his also doping team mate was complaining that the authorities were giving preferential treatment to LA to avoid the testing. His testimony does not indicate any authority concerned in the least about enforcing any ban.

So who was cheating who?

So, at least to me, the ethical basis of the ban is important. We can regard it as a whim of no consequence, a rule of a game, or we can regard it as having consequences. Using these aids to performance is a risk. Being incentified to use them, including, given aid to avoid the sham tests by the very authorities who administer the ban, without access to doctors, is increased risk shared only by LA, not those selling the sham.

It is their rules, it is their gain, but it is LA's life. There is no ethical basis for the ban--none, in fact, as practiced, its sole impact is to maximize LA's risk while simultaneously actively encouraging him to take that risk, the results of which are ridden by others like parasites.

Roark didn't have to be an architect, and Rearden didn't have to manufacture steel. If they didn't like the rules of others in their tribe-- rules designed to ride them like parasites, they were always free to do something else.

Free association turned on its ear to eat freedom.

Were the fans of pre-bicycling -- the folks a million miles away from any risk taking at all -- cheated from their vicarious entertainment by way of watching the spectacle from the arena seats? Are the fans of pro wrestling cheated because of the theatrics?

Are steroids banned from the sport of pro-wrestling? (Hard to say that with a straight face...)

Is there 'cheating' of the fans going on in the spectacle of pro-wrestling?

If there is, then, the new freedom eating carte blanche we found still works: nobody forces anybody to be a fan of pro-wrestling.

Or pro-bicycling for that matter.

Lather, rinse, repeat, and that is how the tribe -- including those who curiously thump Ayn Rand in isolated byways-- surrender our lives to others.

Because after all, nobody forces us to be free. We can always be something else.

In a free market there is no ethical basis for that ban, and Roark is free to be an architect, Rearden is free to make steel, and LA is free to ride his bicycle fast taking risks with -his life- that he alone bears the consequences of.

regards,
Fred
(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 2/01, 5:13am)

Post 38

Friday, February 1, 2013 - 8:39am

Fred,

There is no ethical basis for the ban

That might be true, but it is still a matter of free association. I can choose to ban short people from coming into my house. We have a right to be irrational, and even unethical... as long as we don't violate the ability of the other to choose (no force, fraud or theft). Freedom to associate includes the freedom to not associate.
-----------

Were the fans of pre-bicycling -- the folks a million miles away from any risk taking at all...

There is an asymmetry in your discussion I'd like to point out. The fans are half of one of the transactions in this whole commercial enterprise of which Armstrong was part. No fans, no career for Lance. Any given fan may be taking great risks in their own life, and exerting great effort... then they come home and unwind by cheering on Lance. Who knows, maybe Armstrong came home after bike riding and turned on the boxing channel, where he was just a fan who suffered no risks of being punched. So, what I'm saying is that I don't think "shedding risk" is a viable ethical argument in this instance. It sure doesn't have the potency or meaning that it does when you talk about the people in private corporations that get taxpayer bail outs to cover their losses, but get to keep their profits and salaries and bonuses.
-----------

In a free market there is no ethical basis for that ban

Yes and no. It would be a violation of individual rights to prohibit steroid use by threat of violence (i.e., by law), but not a violation of individual rights for a private organization to ban them as a condition of membership. Even if a private organization has a right to ban them, it doesn't mean their actions are ethical - and when a practice is rooted in hypocrisy, then it is unethical, even though it violates no rights. We get to behave badly as long as we don't violate rights.
-----------

Roark is free to build - true, as long as his contract is honored and the product of his mind isn't stolen.
Rearden is free to make steel - True, till the goverment violated his rights, stole his property, and put a gun to his head.
Armstrong is free to ride his bicycle fast - true, but not with those private organizations that don't want him, or for those fans that no longer like him, or get endorsements from companies that no longer want to pay them.

In civil court, in a decision for the plaintiff, the judge and jury look to make the injured party whole (as much as possible to put them back to the state they were in before the injury). If Armstrong were found to have been wronged, making him whole would involve forcing private parties to engage in forced associations, or pay great sums of money to avoid associating with him. Can you hear a judge say, "You organizations will let Armstrong race in your events. You product people will continue to pay Armstrong to endorse your product. You fans will continue to sit in front of your TV and watch Armstrong race."

If the culture has an negative (even if illogical) understanding of steroids, then Armstrong is going to suffer from being outed - that's a reality - and one he knew about.

Post 39

Friday, February 1, 2013 - 8:40am