Ethics verdict, short version:
“Shut up, Lance.”
What in the world would make Lance Armstrong, who edges out Barry Bonds for the title of most infamous high-profile cheater in recent U.S. sports history (Barry had an advantage because he cheated in a far more popular (in this country) and lucrative sport, baseball, than cycling), think anyone wants to hear him expound on “fairness in sports”? It is the biological males and post-puberty transitioners clobbering female athletes that have Lance expounding. Observe his tweeted concerns:
Have we really come to a time and place where spirited debate is not only frowned upon, but feared? Where people’s greatest concern is being fired, shamed or cancelled? As someone all too familiar with this phenomenon, I feel I’m uniquely positioned to have these conversations. Of all the controversial and polarizing subjects out there today, I’m not sure there are any as heated as the topic of Trans athletes in sport.
Is there not a world in which one can be supportive of the transgender community and curious about the fairness of Trans athletes in sport yet not be labeled a transphobe or a bigot as we ask questions? Do we yet know the answers? And do we even want to know the answers?
I do. Hence these conversations… a special series of The Forward, beginning Monday, where I dive into this issue with an open mind in an attempt learn as much as possible from all sides of the debate. I truly hope you enjoy this series. And I hope that for those who have been reluctant to have this conversation, this somehow feels safe. Be fearless.’
Or perhaps “Be oblivious” would be better phrasing coming from Lance. The one-time king of his sport made himself the hero of cycling enthusiasts world-wide only to have his seven titles stripped from him after he admitted—after lying for years—to not only having employed banned drugs and procedures himself but also leading other cyclists to do the same. Yes, he’s intelligent, thoughtful, perceptive—you have to be all of those things to pull off such a successful and profitable scam for so long—but he’s also a proven sociopath who can’t be believed if he states that up is up and down is down.
The issue is ethics estoppel. When public figures have shown themselves to be devoid of crucial ethical values, their subsequent musings and pronouncements on the ethical behavior of others do more harm than good, making ethics itself look like a con. Usually “heed a valid message despite the flaws of the messenger” is a good rule, but not when Harvey Weinstein is lecturing about the evils of sexual harassment in the workplace, not when Clarence Thomas is holding forth on the importance of judges avoiding the appearance of impropriety, and definitely not when Lance Armstrong is offering his thoughts about what is fair competition in sports.
Lance is uniquely positioned, all right. He’s uniquely positioned to make the public stick its fingers in their ears and retch. Based on their reactions on social media to his tone-deaf announcement, that’s basically what it will do.
Good.
_________________
Pointer: Other Bill
Ethics Alarms 
Would your analysis change if he were to use his own cheating to draw a parallel to the inherent unfairness of males competing in women’s sports.
I could see how you could make the case that naturally occurring hormones in male bodies that don’t occur naturally in female bodies is virtually no different than injecting steroids into a body. We wouldn’t allow women to inject such steroids into their bodies for an edge so why allow males who by virtue of nature get the equivalent edge. The only way to level the field is to pump girls full of steroids if we continue to have males compete against females.
Pumping women full of steroids doesn’t level the playing field. Steroids are not going to make women taller, expand women’s lung capacity, change their pelvic bones or make their arms longer. It will bulk up muscles some, but it isn’t going to be equivalent to making women male.
Women are not men, and letting men compete in women’s sports eliminates women’s sports. Unless someone invents brain transfer technology and technology for growing new bodies, there is no medical solution to this apparent conundrum.
Who exactly listens to a Lance Armstrong podcast? Why does anyone care what he has to say about anything? A cyclist busted for chronic cheating is really valued by people for his commentary? By who and for what?
NP
Just for clarity I was not advocating for pumping women with steroids.
What I was getting at was if Armstrong explained how men purporting to be women would be no different than his lying and cheating should anyone pay attention to his point. He would be admitting wrongdoing in doing so.
Unless someone invents brain transfer technology and technology for growing new bodies, there is no medical solution to this apparent conundrum.
That is called transhumanism. Google, Meta, Musk, etc. are looking at how to “upgrade” us by technological means.
When you have time, explore the musings of Martine Rothblatt and her book From Transgender to Transhuman.
To be clear, most trans folks have zero interest in transhumanism but they do make for convenient trojan horses for other technocratic agendas.
No. There is no reason to trust Armstrong, ever. He made a career out of cheating and lying, and has never shown any sign of remorse or regret. He’s a true sociopath, an archetype, and sociopaths don’t get better.
Shouldn’t anyone pushing back on social media because of Armstrong’s history be similarly estopped if they also support the transgender cheat?
I support Armstrong’s right to say anything he pleases. In his own mind, his motives for taking on this issue may genuinely be altruistic. However, I view Armstrong as a narcissistic grifter whose utterances should at least be questioned or more appropriately totally ignored. Ever since his cheating came to light, he has been driven to recapture the spotlight. Since clearly, Armstrong is an “ends justify the means” person and serial liar, nothing he says should be accepted as true. Additionally, viewing his podcasts vs. shunning supports his sports-washing attempts to reenter respected society.
I have no respect for cheats. I especially abhor it occurring in professional sports. Why do I single out professional sports? The outcome of any sporting event is totally irrelevant to everyone except the event’s participants. For the players, the riches from winning can be enormous. The sport cheat, therefore, is no different than your average liquor store robber. The sports cheat is stealing compensation, glory, and fame from their fellow competitors, just like the robber is stealing the liquor store owner’s livelihood. If society does not revere the bandit, why admire the sports cheat?
My primary reason for condemning sports cheats is this; high-performing sports figures are revered by many segments of society, particularly our youth. It is a disservice to society for our youth to model themselves on these cheats. It promotes an ‘end justifies the means’ attitude. It leads to the acceptance of the two-tiered justice system we have today. It makes lying and propagandizing virtuous if it is focused in the right direction. It continues to tear at our society’s moral fabric.
A detractor to my argument may say I exaggerate the impact of cheating in sports. In defense of my position, I suggest the following. When someone cheats at anything, they will try to conceal their cheating, so they know what they are doing is wrong. With their first cheating attempt, they may be filled with trepidation and angst. With each subsequent rule’s infraction, however, it becomes easier for them to ignore their ethical breaches. If this aspect of human behavior is true for an individual, wouldn’t this behavior of acceptance of cheating apply to society as a whole? I think it would. We see it in our polarized double-standard society today. So, while it is just a game, who cares? We should all care and demand better because yes, it is just a game, but its impact can be far-reaching.