Recently I revisited ESPN’s Lance: a two part documentary on Lance Armstrong’s career and infamous doping scandal. I remembered it as a very well done and intriguing documentary, so I figured it deserved another watch from me. I’d like to say that what you’re reading is two things: a small review on the documentary, and which side you stand on when it comes to Lance Armstrong, Barry Bonds, and athletes like them who were involved in doping.
My Impressions from the documentary
ESPN’s 30 for 30 collection always impresses with their episodes. They have great style and pace with awesome interview appearances from figures who are relevant to the story they’re telling. What sticks out to me was how ESPN made sure not to take a position on Lance Armstrong. There wasn’t a narrative created that supported Lance or a narrative that trashed Lance. They chose to show the events throughout his life, let Lance give his take on the event, and then let other figures relevant to the event talk about their experiences. That way ESPN is saying “Here’s what happened, here’s what Lance wants you to know, and here’s how that affected the timeline.” Kudos to ESPN for constructing it with a very open and inclusive space for the viewer to make their own opinion whilst watching. I truly believe that if you had ten random people view this documentary, have their opinions on Lance polled, and then gathered, there would be wide variance in their opinions on Lance Armstrong.
The section I found most interesting was the prevalence cancer had in Lance Armstrong’s life. From his battle with it, to the Livestrong and Lance Armstrong Foundation days, there is a different story to be told about the man who is Lance Armstrong on the cancer side of things. After his low chance of survival fight with cancer, Lance wanted to change the way cancer was talked about and raise awareness overall. It felt like there could have been a whole separate documentary around his work with cancer because of how extensive and important it is to his legacy and life.
Take a stance: How should you feel about Lance Armstrong and other athletes who use performance enhancers?
When I tackle this question I feel that regardless of how helpful the drugs were for the athlete, there is something to be said about their success. Lance Armstrong won 22 individual stages and 11 individual time trial stages in all of the Tour de France races he competed in (There are 21 stages total in one Tour De France by the way). There are so many more variables to success in whatever sport we see doping, whether that’s cycling or baseball. There are things such as strategy, sport/game IQ, and attributes such as grittiness that drugs can’t provide. Every ball Barry Bonds crushed wasn’t put in the stands solely because of the fact he was on steroids–he reacted fast enough to make the decision to swing on the pitch, and also time up the swing to then put the ball into the sky. In no way am I defending doping, I am just saying there is so much more than just doping that carried Lance Armstrong and Barry Bonds to their successes. One of Lance’s former teammates also gave light to this perspective in the documentary, saying that the fact he did not suffer a crash or break off from his strategy in so many stages over the course of his career was impressive on its own.
Does that success still matter after we learn there was doping involved in the production of said success?
This is an unpopular answer, but yes. Personally, I think history is history. Whether it’s bad history or good history it still needs to be acknowledged. Lance winning seven consecutive Tour De Frances did happen, so why should we hide it? Am I saying you should be praising these victories and they should be tied to his name? No. I am saying that at the smallest level there is relevance to the seven wins because they happened. They can’t be erased like they never happened, so therefore there’s worth, even if it’s microscopic to public opinion.