This document discusses the career of Lance Armstrong and the doping allegations against him. It provides background on his 7 Tour de France wins and cancer recovery. It outlines the key claims against Armstrong from witnesses and teammates, as well as the counterclaims from Armstrong and his supporters. The document also discusses the ethics around doping in cycling and whether exposing Armstrong benefits or harms society.

1. LANCE ARMSTRONG
Is what we see real?

2. TOK/WOK CONTEXT
Can we trust our senses when it comes to assessing a
sports star like Armstrong?
How important is emotional context?
Can reason be applied to this case study?
How important is language in influencing our opinion?
Note: I am not trying to say either Armstrong is clean
or not. That is for YOU as the KNOWER to decide.

3. THE FACTS
7 Times winner of the Tour de France (one of the
most difficult annual sporting contests in the world)
having recovered from testicular cancer in 1998. He
returned to the sport in 1999 to win the Tour for the
1st time.
Came 3rd this year in the 2009 Tour de France at the
age of 37 having been retired for 3 years. He returned
to professional cycling to gain exposure for
Livestrong, his INGO designed to raise money for
cancer.

4. August 2012
Armstrong says he will no longer fight
the claims about his drug taking made by USADA.
USADA planned to use 9 former teammates who were all
willing to testify against Armstrong. Subsequently, Armstrog
is stripped of his 7 titles and given a lifetime ban by
USADA.

5. ETHICS & CLAIMS/
COUNTERCLAIMS
Has it been possible for Lance Armstrong to dupe the
general public, taking drugs to enhance his
performance as a cyclist? Even if Armstrong is a ‘myth,’
would it be better not not expose him? (Utilitarian
argument)
We need to assess the claims (Largely from David
Walsh, the Times journalist and his witnesses) and
counterclaims. (Lance Armstrong and his supporters)

6. THE KNOWLEDGE ISSUE
To what extent can natural science provide reliable,
objective data?
Real Life Situation: UCI’s introduction of Biological
Passport...
To what extent can utilitarian values lead to
unethical behaviour?

7. THE EVIDENCE AGAINST
LANCE ARMSTRONG
The Hospital Room Incident (A number of witnesses,
including an x-teammate of Armstrong (Frankie
Andreu) who claim Armstrong admitted to using
performance enhancing drugs. (EPO etc)
Conversation between Lance Armstrong and Greg Le
Mond (3 Times winner of Tour de France) & Andreu
with Jonathan Vaughters. (Another former pro rider)
Example of Christophe Bassons (Cyclist who claimed
you couldn’t get into the top 10 of the TdF without
taking drugs)

8. ARMSTRONG’S
CONTEMPORARIES
Lance Armstrong competed against great riders in his many Tour de France’s. Of his
rivals, Marco Pantani, Jose Marie Jimenez, Joseba Beloki, Francesco Mancebo, Ivan
Basso, Bjarne Riis, Flloyd Landis, Tyler Hamilton, Roberto Heras, Iban Mayo et al were
all caught doping. Jan Ullrich’s entire Team Telecom admitted to taking EPO yet he has
refused to admit taking this substance apparently for fear of loss of earnings.
According to scientists the banned drug EPO improves the recovery of riders by
30%. Using REASON, is it possible for Armstrong to beat these rivals without EPO?

9. THE COUNTERCLAIMS FOR
ARMSTRONG
He’s never been caught doping, having been tested
many times.
Is Walsh just a ‘tabloid’ journalist as Armstrong
describes? Is Walsh just trying to make money from
Armstrong’s name?
Are the former cyclists lined up by USADA being
coerced into giving evidence against Armstrong?
Was he just much better than the rest?
Why would Armstrong dope having just survived
testicular cancer?

10. THE SCIENCE OF LANCE...SEE
DISCOVERY CHANNEL FILM
Faster cadence (he spins the pedals faster) than pre-
cancer
Mythical training rides in the French mountains in
February. In other words he trained harder.
Much lighter than in pre-cancer era (A point Walsh
counterclaims in his book)
Better equipment (helmet, bike, position on the bike
etc)
A better strategist and mentally tougher post-cancer

11. ETHICS: SO WHAT IF HE DID
CHEAT?
Huge damage to the cancer community
Huge damage to the already tarnished image of cycling (sponsors withdrawing from
the sport?)
If everyone was taking drugs, wasn’t Armstrong just doing what he needed to
compete? (Fallacious reasoning?)What about Bassons, Moncoutie, Mottet, McGhee
etc who have repeatedly refused to accept doping throughout their career? Could
they have been winners? How do we know even they were clean?
If he did cheat and we deliberately ignore this are we implicit in the cheating process?
Do we have a moral responsibility to to tell the truth? (Moral relativism...is there any
such thing as moral absolutism?)

12. CONNECTIONS
The UCI is widely recognised as the most innovative
international sporting organisation for combating
drug taking. Lots of cyclists may dope but they also
get caught! Recently, a system of biological passports
was introduced, whereby cyclists are measured in
terms of their capabilities so as any unusually good
performances can be checked against their biological
passport. The Italian cyclist Danilo Di Luca who came
2nd in the Tour of Italy was caught using this method.

13. CONNECTIONS
To what extent is sport itself to blame and the system
by which it funds itself? Many cyclists blame the
sponsors (many sponsors had systematic doping in
teams e.g. The Festina Affair in 1998) and suggest that
pressure to win from sponsors overrides any ethical
(AOK) imperative.
Are the fans to blame? Does the emotional
connection created by the media fuel professional
sports? Without fans there would be no sponsorship
or professionalism. Are athletes tempted by the
riches offered by sport?

14. YOUR TASK
Choose one person who is important to you in your
life. (Can be a family member or friend)
Establish claims and counterclaims about that
person...those who would testify (in your opinion) for
them and those who would have a less positive
attitude towards them.
Apply the WOK. What have you seen or heard from
them to help justify your belief? Think about
emotional connections, the language you use and any
use of reasoning to help justify your belief.