The better question, I think, is whether he was ever one to begin with.
Armstrong's cancer ordeal was certainly that, but not "heroic" IMO. His odds of survival were actually pretty decent, and he went into remission after five months, and has remained cancer-free. Compare that to the years-long suffering - remission followed by devastating recurrences - of so many people with this disease, many of whom keep fighting for the sake of others (children, spouse) rather than self.
Charity is often a means of self-gratification; something I admit to feeling when I donate. And I don't have my name on an organization, or my face on any of their billboards.
You certainly can't compare the effects of chemo drugs, which I can attest make you sicker than you would imagine possible, with those which enhance physical performance. I knew a guy once who was into body-building, and told me that blood-doping was "better than doing cocaine." And that most of the other stuff was even better than that. I'm certainly no expert, but it stands to reason that substances that make you stronger and increase your endurance aren't going to be making you feel lousy at the same time; just consider the endorphins, for one thing.
I'm curious - why would you be against the use of experimental drugs- or even banned, or illegal ones, for that matter - in treating a life-threatening disease? (If, in fact, that's what you meant about his cancer treatment.)
In case it isn't obvious, Armstrong was never a hero to me. Is it "heroic" to want to survive a disease? To want to win, and to make more money? I see a hero as someone who sacrifices for others; not a self-serving, unapologetic egomaniac admittedly driven by a hatred of losing.
reply
share