It was only when I watched this report on "smart drugs" that I finally understood how skewed our perception of Lance Armstrong is. See, in the report this scientist speaks of how taking these types of drugs can make people be able to read quicker, maybe retain some of that knowledge, maybe be able to retrieve it quicker and more consistently than if you didn't take the drug. The theory goes that if you do these things with greater ease, then you’ll be able to perform better on tests that measure how "smart" you are, and maybe even other types of academic tests. That's why some college students find using these drugs of advantage for their studies. But I asked myself, can I take some of these drugs and then go and pass a test on astrophysics or mathematics or computer programming? Could I? Not unless I've at last read the subject matter before! And that's just it; I can't be "smart" unless I put in at least some effort myself. All the best drugs in the world can't make me pass a test on theoretical physics if I don't even know what theoretical physics is.
I know, that's not a real comparison though, right? I mean if I want to pass a test on a subject matter it's probably because I at least have some interest in this matter, have heard of it, and for some reason have decided that this is important to me. If I had had access to them in medical school, would I have taken "smart drugs"? Well, I could argue that I obviously didn't need to to graduate. But what would have happened if I did? I could have taken less time to study as I may have being able to read quicker, learn quicker, and recall more consistently. I could have, in turn, dedicated more time to leisure activities. Or, I could have studied some more and got even better grades (for what benefit I don't know, but that's a possibility). The real question is would it be unfair to other students if some take ‘performance-enhancing’ drugs and others didn't? Would this whole conversation be unnecessary if every student in the class had access to these drugs? Well, this is exactly what Lance Armstrong's logic was even when he did confess to using (banned) performance enhancing drugs and techniques in international professional cycling competitions. What he told himself was that if everyone does it, it's not cheating and it’s not wrong and it's not even worthy of discussion.
But let me go back to my original scenario about "smart drugs" in academia. No, they don't work on just nothing, and if you have never heard about thermodynamics, taking all the best performance-enhancing drugs in the world will not magically make you know about it. You still won't pass tests that other students who have studied know about. You have actually no advantage over them despite the drugs - unless the drugs are not the only thing at play.
Lance Armstrong. Everyone feels entitled to call him a cheat and a liar. He's a bad person, right? Well, firstly let me state my opinion – and yes, this is just opinion. Certainly (as he admits) he has done and said some things to cover up his use of performance-enhancing drugs and techniques that hurt other people. He broke international cycling competition rules also. He denied other competitors a right to an equal playing field. And he tarnished the reputation of a sport and competitions a lot of people had a high regard for. But more than that, I think what people (and I mean people outside of the cycling world especially) feel most upset by is the selling of a false story. I mean, he was thought of a hero and an example of overcoming great adversity for equally great success in life (overcoming metastatic testicular cancer) and what is a very difficult sport. His story gave many people hope, inspiration, and motivation. This is why Lance Armstrong was so widely respected and admired. But that story (perhaps) only occurred because he gave himself unfair advantages. He molded and manipulated the circumstances so that the story would unfold the way it did: with him as the winner. That part of it I feel we have a right to be upset about, but I think for the majority of us, that is where our opinion of him should end.
Lance Armstrong is a very flawed character, and yet I think we all somehow forget that the majority of us weren't there on the race track on bikes competing next to him. A lot of us act as if he personally cheated against one of us. A lot of us believe he had no right to the admiration and success he had because of his use of performance-enhancing techniques. But the truth is how many of us have cycled 3,400km in 21 days? I haven’t and I don’t know personally many people who do. Yet a lot more people that don’t do this either, behave with criticism towards Lance Armstrong as if they had been his immediate competitors in the Tour de France. We didn't compete because we weren't motivated to, we lacked the physical and mental stamina to undertake such a marathon task, we simply were not up to the standard required for it at all. And that’s the thing I realised when I watched the report on “smart drugs”, that no matter what anyone says, drugs do not work on nothing. Something of the whole Lance Armstrong story was the individual himself (was it the motivation, the will, the mental determination, the hours of physical training and preparation, etc - who knows?). and not purely the performance-enhancing techniques he utilised.
So I think, yes, admit that we are angry towards Lance Armstrong for selling us a false story, for giving us hope based on false premises, for acting erroneously towards a lot of individual and sporting groups – but remember, we were not his competitors and are not and should not judge him as being any more or any less than we are: an imperfect human being.
