Your pillow talk-loving On Fire correspondent was asked a very interesting question by his (or her) roommate the other day: Who suffered a bigger fall, Lance Armstrong or Tiger Woods? (For those of you who missed the news, your informed On Fire correspondent recently found out from Yahoo! that Lance has officially been stripped of his seven Tour de France titles for the use of banned drugs, blood transfusions and ‘elaborate schemes’ to fool testers.)
To many, this may seem like a dumb question. Both were at the pinnacle of their sports, both were disgraced and now we can move on. What does it matter whose fall was bigger? The sports were different, the offenses were different, the people are different – to try to compare them like apples and oranges, to insist on somehow quantifying to similar but distinct situations for no end beyond the thrill of doing it, seems something very cable-news, reality tv-ish. In short, very American. So we will do it.
In order to fall, you have to start from a position of height. And in terms of pure dominance, it seems safe to say that Lance has Tiger beat. He won the most prestigious event in his sport seven times in a row, easily distinguishing himself as the greatest cyclist ever (as viewed at the time). While Tiger was clearly the best active golfer, he never achieved quite the same spurt of dominance and, in the eyes of many, had not yet eclipsed Jack Nicklaus in terms of all-time greatness.
But Lance Armstrong was a cyclist. And no one really cares about cycling. Personally, your niche-sport loving can only name one other cyclist off the top of his (or her) head, and that is only because Floyd Landis was an American busted for steroids. Golf is what America is all about. Nothing says I love my country more than attempting to make a tiny ball traverse a long distance before entering a tiny hole, whilst taking as few swings at it as possible. It is tough to say why this is the case. Perhaps something about the game recaptures the pioneer spirit of yore, or maybe it is simply the utterly thrilling, warlike nature of the sport which calls to mind the Revolutionary War.
While the jury is still out on the reason why, it cannot be doubted that golf is much more relevant to the American consciousness. So, while Lance rose higher in his sport, Tiger rose higher overall, and thus had a longer way to fall.
But when they fell, did both reach the bottom? Your On Fire correspondent will suggest that neither of them completely did. In Tiger’s case, his fall was not related to his athletic endeavors. His deeds may not have been the most morally upstanding, but they did not undercut his performance on the course. Though his play fell off sharply, he appears to be at least beginning to be competitive at important tournaments again.
Besides, many (your hesitant-to-exaggerate On Fire correspondent uses the term many loosely) of the male persuasion who viewed Tiger’s case felt at least a twinge sympathy for the guy whose wife went absolutely psycho on him, and maybe even a hint of jealousy of the amount of sex he was having (let it be noted that your progressive On Fire correspondent’s face can soon be seen at an photo exhibit titled Who Needs Feminism which will be on display on the ground floor of the library starting in November (and let it be noted that his (or her) face will be present in support of feminism, not as an example of why it is needed)).
Lance’s off the field record, however, remains outstanding. He may very well be (according to your On Fire correspondent’s informal research) the single most important non-scientist in the fight against cancer, and the amount of both awareness and money he has raised for cancer is astronomical. Surely all of this is much more important than whether or not he took the same prohibited drugs that everyone else was taking. Your utilitarian On Fire correspondent may even go so far as to suggest that Armstrong’s cheating was for the best, since it enabled him to both inspire and help a generation of cancer patients. As Lance’s autobiography says, it’s not about the bike.
But your On Fire correspondent is not a utilitarian – rather, he (or she) is a deontologist. As such, the ends can never be used to justify the means, and under no circumstances can cheating be permitted. Either in a sport, or on your wife. Especially when she is a Swedish supermodel. From all of us here at On Fire, a wag of the finger to both Tiger and Lance. Come on guys.
The Emory Wheel was founded in 1919 and is currently the only independent, student-run newspaper of Emory University. The Wheel publishes weekly on Wednesdays during the academic year, except during University holidays and scheduled publication intermissions.
The Wheel is financially and editorially independent from the University. All of its content is generated by the Wheel’s more than 100 student staff members and contributing writers, and its printing costs are covered by profits from self-generated advertising sales.
