By now we all know Lance Armstrong has admitted to using performance enhancing supplements (his Oprah interview will air Thursday), and while many fans have written off Armstrong as a sneak and a cheat, many other fans (many of whom are cancer survivors) are seemingly still in support of Armstrong in light of his admissions. Just today on Mike & Mike (ESPN) the two hosts struggled with sorting out whether Armstrong’s work in raising cancer awareness somehow off-sets the lies, cheating, and threats to others who previously called Armstrong out as a cheater.
I have written many times in the past about the psychological theory of cognitive dissonance, and how sports figures often put us in perplexing positions when they mess up. On one hand, we admire their great talents and abilities, but on the other hand we must sort out in our minds that they are the same people who sometimes screw up — and screw up badly, as Lance Armstrong did. Cancer survivors who feel Live Strong gave them the support to press on and beat cancer are especially vulnerable to the cognitive dissonance currently associated with Lance Armstrong, as they must now accept the fact that Live Strong really only existed because of Armstrong’s fame — fame that was built entirely upon a house of lies. Still, to each their own when it comes to whether or not to continue being a fan of Lance Armstrong.
In an attempt to minimize cognitive dissonance, people are offering various excuses, alibis, and rationalizations about what Armstrong did. Some of the things I’m regularly hearing today include:
- So what, he cheated in bike racing just like everyone else did
- I don’t care if he cheated, his contributions toward helping people with cancer easily offset the ways in which he achieved these goals
- He’s not such a bad guy since he is now coming clean with the truth
Cheating is an interesting topic to discuss (Lance Armstrong aside for a moment). Some people are absolute in the evaluation of cheaters (if you cheated you are wrong, period), while others take into account the good intentions of a person who cheats, steals, or lies. For example, this past weekend I watched a special on television about the infamous bank robber John Dillinger, a man with such charisma and supposed good intent (taking from the banks who were the real thieves in Dillinger’s mind) that he was viewed as a “Robin Hood” type persona! As Dillinger and his gang ransacked banks across the country, some cities even brokered deals with him in a “see no evil, hear no evil” type of way (Minnesota is an example). Yes, it’s almost impossible to predict how people will react to others with poor morals and judgement.
While none of us know how Armstrong responded to Oprah’s questions (we won’t know until the show airs Thursday), it will be interesting to see his level of genuineness, and if he really “gets it,” or if he is still delusional in thinking that somehow his 10+ years of rampant cheating was offset because he helped people with cancer. If you buy what Armstrong is selling – and it’s your right to do so – just remember there are tens of thousands of prisoners in jails across the country today that would proudly tell you that their own bad decisions were justified because they had mouths to feed at home (or other important reasons). My point is it’s a slippery slope when you begin to evaluate intent as it applies to cheating.
There’s a great moral dilemma psychologists often use when teaching students about the complexities of making sound moral decisions – it’s called the “Heinz dilemma” by Lawrence Kohlberg. Would you steal a drug if you didn’t have the money but by stealing it you would save your spouse’s life? That is, in essence, the main question pertaining to the Heinz dilemma. In the case of Lance Armstrong, perhaps he will tell Oprah that he was precisely in that kind of position, leaving it up to you, the viewer, to decide if his actions were justified.
www.drstankovich.com
