Although Lance Armstrong has broken the rules, we shouldn’t be so quick to judge him. In many ways he’s a pioneer in human enhancement, and history books may forgive him, argues Professor Andy Miah, Director of the Creative Futures Institute at the University of the West of Scotland.
Did he really innovate anything but methods to keep his doping secret and beating the tests meant to catch cheaters? I don’t see him making any real contribution to biological enhancement.
Posted by Christian Corralejo on 01/31 at 04:14 PM
In fact you can say he is a swindler because there have been several people who accused of him of doping (which we now know are true) and he actually got money from those people when those accusations were rebuked. What’s worse is when Oprah asked hm about those accusers he got money from he spoke about them all too causally. So don’t make him a hero of something that he is not.
Posted by SHaGGGz on 01/31 at 10:27 PM
The whole “repeatedly denying what everyone knew to be true and launching vicious lawsuits against those that dared to point it out” thing kind of undermines his image of laudable h+ pioneer. If anything, it sets the cause back to have such douchedom be associated with it. The fact that one is not necessarily associated with the other is the sort of subtlety that is often glossed over in the mainstream mind.