Home
The other day I saw two examples of people being castigated for cheating (and winning) whilst ALL their competitors were cheating also.
If they hadn't of cheated and been morally upstanding - they would not have won, some johnny foreigner would have - and they certainly would not have been hung out to dry if anyone ever did 'out' them - which imo would have been very unlikely anyway.
The fiest example I have in mind is Lance Armstrong. Yes he cheated. The thing was - so did EVERYONE else. Indeed Armstrongs victory's have been struck out of the record books but nobody else's name as replaced it because those that finished second, third, forth, fifth...ninetyseventh, ninetyeighth, ninetynineth, etc, etc have all since been proved to have been drug doping also.
All of these others were europeans - all the drug doctors involved were europeans, and it was the european press that went after Armstrong because he wasn't 'one of theirs'.
He was the best of his generation if he and no one else took drugs - and he was the best of his generation when he took drugs like everyone else did.
If he hadn't he simply would not have won and probably drug taking would still be the hidden 'norm' of the sport.
The second was how BA (British Aerospace) later BAE Systems won a staggeringly colossal arms deal (Al-Yamamah) with the Saudi royal family because (in a nut shell) they paid the biggest bribe.
If they hadn't the French or the Americans would have and won the contract instead.
So of course it is wrong to cheat but is it still wrong to cheat when everyone else is and being honest stops you from having any chance of winning - even though you may be the best on equal terms?
If they hadn't of cheated and been morally upstanding - they would not have won, some johnny foreigner would have - and they certainly would not have been hung out to dry if anyone ever did 'out' them - which imo would have been very unlikely anyway.
The fiest example I have in mind is Lance Armstrong. Yes he cheated. The thing was - so did EVERYONE else. Indeed Armstrongs victory's have been struck out of the record books but nobody else's name as replaced it because those that finished second, third, forth, fifth...ninetyseventh, ninetyeighth, ninetynineth, etc, etc have all since been proved to have been drug doping also.
All of these others were europeans - all the drug doctors involved were europeans, and it was the european press that went after Armstrong because he wasn't 'one of theirs'.
He was the best of his generation if he and no one else took drugs - and he was the best of his generation when he took drugs like everyone else did.
If he hadn't he simply would not have won and probably drug taking would still be the hidden 'norm' of the sport.
The second was how BA (British Aerospace) later BAE Systems won a staggeringly colossal arms deal (Al-Yamamah) with the Saudi royal family because (in a nut shell) they paid the biggest bribe.
If they hadn't the French or the Americans would have and won the contract instead.
So of course it is wrong to cheat but is it still wrong to cheat when everyone else is and being honest stops you from having any chance of winning - even though you may be the best on equal terms?
