- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
As I read this story this morning http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/19/us/lance-armstrong/index.html And people are losing faith in his inspirational image because of these flaws. And they want their money back.
Can Armstrong be an inspirational figure re: cancer recovery, and still be a deeply flawed man? Ahh, the paradox! Can we live with these kinds of paradoxes and still find inspiration in the world?
I love the example, turinturambar. Quote:Can Armstrong be an inspirational figure re: cancer recovery, and still be a deeply flawed man?
Absolutely. As a former History teacher, most extraordinary person were, in some way, extraordinary on BOTH sides of the scale. The best of them were “great” largely because the extremes of their “goodness” outweighed or made up for the extremes of their “badness”. (wayfarer’s example in another current thread of his friend, the loving and loved conman, is a good example on a more local scale.) At best, they were largely great and somewhat bad; at worst, they were “extreme but balanced”.
Quote:Ahh, the paradox! Can we live with these kinds of paradoxes and still find inspiration in the world?
My inspiration stems largely from the existence of these kinds of paradoxes – that we naturally flawed mortals do so many good and glorious things despite our natural weakness. I expect mistakes – even serious mistakes, so I’m able to appreciate achievements without letting the mistakes become cancerous to me.
I was listening to the radio this morning and the main topic of conversation is Lance Armstrong’s interview with Oprah that will air tomorrow and Friday. It was interesting to hear people having a conversation about someone who did some really bad things (the worst of which, imo, was ruthlessly crushing people who made accurate claims about his doping activities) but also has done some really wonderful things (especially LiveStrong’s impact on cancer research). The theme of most carefully reasoned statements was how those who are extremely gifted in some way often also are mercurial and, therefore, “gifted” in the opposite way – that even the greatest people usually are “balanced” in their goodness and badness – that they are like us on steroids (appropriate, given the issue). I thought of this post while listening and thought again how apt the comparison is to Joseph Smith.
I don’t have a problem with Lance so much. Well, it does bothers me that he attacked the very people that accused him. But. Kind of reminds me Bill Clinton. Personally, I don’t care if he “did not have sex with that woman” in the oval office. I really didn’t care. Good for you Bill. But, I didn’t like the lying afterwards though…the deceit.
Once again…the cover-ups are generally worse than the crimes.
Hmmmmm? Not like I’ve ever said anything like that about the church before.
🙂 But the Internati’l Olympic Committee or the anti-doping organization isn’t covering, minimizing, dismissing as trivial, etc. any of Lance Armstrong’s wrongdoing. They aren’t saying that the truth about him isn’t useful, and so not really necessary for the masses to know. They aren’t casting aspersions on people who are troubled by his conduct. They are letting things play out and a new equilibrium will be reached. The parallels are interesting and for some people probably very compelling. Anytime we place someone on a pedestal we’re at risk of him/her getting knocked off sooner or later. I’ve never found Lance Armstrong or sports figures to be particularly inspiring for me – even when they participate in charity. Call me cynical but I tend to think they’re doing it for the fame and $$$ in the end. That’s not a bad thing, it’s just like the companies sponsoring him are doing it for $$$ in the end. That being said, I don’t vilify Lance Armstrong either. Some of the drug rules seem arbitrary, and I think that if a sport isn’t able to police itself
in the present(vs relying on some future technology for enforcement) it doesn’t seem 100% fair to enforce rules retroactively. Sort of like holding ancient prophets to modern standards of conduct. I used to hold the church to a higher standard, though. If we have prophets who literally talk with God, shouldn’t the church be more perfect than it is? My conclusion is that prophets have been knocked off their pedestal to some degree and I don’t believe they talk face to face with with God – or at least not very often.
Ann wrote:But the Internati’l Olympic Committee or the anti-doping organization isn’t covering, minimizing, dismissing as trivial, etc. any of Lance Armstrong’s wrongdoing. They aren’t saying that the truth about him isn’t useful, and so not really necessary for the masses to know. They aren’t casting aspersions on people who are troubled by his conduct. They are letting things play out and a new equilibrium will be reached.
Last night I was watching “Prince of Egypt” with my kids. The scenes where he begins to realize that he is an isrealite and a child of a slave changes his whole paradigm. He feels lied to and betrayed. He discovers his Step father’s order to kill all the young isrealite boys and is horrified. His step father’s statement of, “They were only slaves,” intended for comfort only disturbed him even more.
After Moses kills the slave driver and runs his brother catches up to him and says that they can fix it. He says, “I am Egypt. If I declare the day to be night and the night to be day then it is so and I say that you are innocent.” Moses responds, “What is done is done and nothing you can say will change that.”
I was struck with the parallels of a faith crisis and how it changes everything we had built up about ourselves and the world. Later some who really intend well, wish us to put the pieces back together again by praying or reading scriptures more – as though repeating “the church is true” enough times will turn back the clock.
Funny thing is that Moses’s identity crisis becomes the catalyst for his eventually leading the people of God out of bondage. People are encouraged to question their heritage and beliefs when it leads them to believe like us…just not the other way around.
It’s quite the ironic situation. Armstrong used drugs to become great; used his greatness to do great things; and so on until he eventually hit superhero status. It’s human nature to want to find a hero to worship. Armstrong was able to do what he did because people thought we was greater than most other people. Now that we are seeing the truth about him–that’s he’s just as much a slave to the human condition as we are–they feel cheated. But they shouldn’t. He’s just a human being.
CtS, that is a wonderful summary. Also, those same people who love to build heros also love to tear them down. Human nature isn’t all that different than animal instinct in many ways. The ability to be aware of it and work to change it is one of very few things that is unique to humans – and that is the heart of repentance, the natural man, opposition in all things, etc. (and one of the reasons Mormon theology resonates so much more for me than the rest of Christianity)
Armstrong was the best at what he did. All cyclist at that level cheat he was just the best at it. IMHO he still worked harder than anyone else. He trained more. He was more mentally tough than his opponents. I still respect him for that. As far as I am concerned it is a big to do about nothing.
Cadence, do you feel the same about Barry Bonds or Sammy Sousa? Why? Cycling takes mental toughness well beyond baseball. Baseball takes practice to develop the skills necessary to play. Cycling takes hard core training which is another thing all together. The two are not comparable to me. My point was he was still a tremendous athlete for doing what he did. Also I think doping is even more common in cycling thus in reality everyone is on a level field. Not saying it is right, it just is. So to single Lance out is bogus to me because most all cyclist dope at some time. The sport just takes so much endurance they are looking for an edge. I even dope before a race. It is just an energy drink like Monster but is that not doping to some degree?
I do not have the answers and I wish doping did not exist but it does and it is not going away. It is just a matter of where we draw the line. Tiger woods had laser eye surgery to get better than 20/20 vision. Is that cheating? It is a matter of perspective.
Bottom line is Lance was the biggest target, so the took him down. He may not be a nice guy but he was a hell of a cyclist.
Another thought. People say Lance was a flawed individual which he probably was. Joseph Smith by all account was tremendously flawed but people still want to give him credit for what he accomplished even though it was full of half truths and outright fabrications, but he was still a hell of a leader at times. Cadence wrote:Also I think doping is even more common in cycling thus in reality everyone is on a level field. Not saying it is right, it just is. So to single Lance out is bogus to me because most all cyclist dope at some time.
I agree that this was/is the case. After all, when the Tour victories were stripped from Lance they were not awarded to anyone else because all of the top finishers have been caught doping.
Cadence wrote:
Bottom line is Lance was the biggest target, so the took him down.I have to disagree here. He was taken down just like everyone else, the difference being that over the years Lance has done all he can to destroy the careers and reputation of all of those who tried to tell the truth about his doping. He was viscous and cruel and given many chances over the years to come clean and maybe suffer superficial punishments. He didn’t. He attacked and attacked. Now he can suffer the same fate he inflicted on others.
But that is just my thoughts on the matter.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.