Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport betrachtet die trotz Sperre geplanten Triathlon-Starts von Lance Armstrong

Das Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) hat eine interessante Betrachtung der aktuellen Entwicklung zur lebenslangen Sperre von Lance Armstrong durch die USADA (United States Anti Doping Agency) publiziert. Hintergrund des kurzen Artikels* der Ethiker über den Fall Lance Armstrong und seiner gemeinnützigen Stiftung Livestrong für mehr Aufmerksamkeit gegenüber von Krebs betroffenen Familien sind aktuelle Entwicklungen bei verschiedenen us-amerikanischen Triathlon-Events.

Auf der Überholspur weiter sportlich unterwegs - Lance Armstrong. Photo: Daniel Norton

Vor die Frage einer Priorisierung gestellt, ob Fundraising oder die Ausführung eines sportlichen Wettkampfes nach den gültigen Regeln der sanktionierenden Verbände, wie etwa USA Triathlon (USAT) und USADA für die Ausrichter entscheidender seien, haben sich erste Triathlons für das Fundraising und damit ein Ausscheiden aus dem organisierten Sport entschieden. Ein ähnliches Bild ergibt sich für den in der Vergangenheit noch nie unter Aufsicht von USAT stattfindenden Superfrog Triathlon von San Diego, der durch Lance Armstrong immerhin innerhalb kurzer Zeit 200 neue Starter begrüßen konnte.**

Selbst gestandenden Profi-Triathleten wie Matthew Reed oder Richie Cunningham rollen sich die Fußnägel hoch während sich die Zunge analog dazu löst. Cunningham, immerhin ein vom Veranstaler Rev3 direkt unterstützter Athlet sieht sich in einem Interessenskonflikt, hat aber dennoch deutliche Kritik in den passenden Worten gefunden: "I completely disagree with Half Full/UCF's decision to unsaction this event and disregard USADA by letting Lance race. I'm not buying the 'ends justify the means' argument. There are more positive ways to raise money that don't hurt the sport of triathlon and offend athletes by ignoring a life ban handed down by a governing body." ***

Die USA mögen sehr weit weg sein, das Beispiel zeigt aber einmal mehr, wie fragil der organisierte Sport in den Randsportarten ist. Gerade unter dem Aspekt, dass USAT der weltgrößte Triathlonverband ist und bereits anderweitig unter Druck steht ein beachtenswerter Schritt der Veranstalter. Für den ganz großen Schritt, einer eigene Livestrong-Triathlon Serie, scheint aber ein Faktor gegen Lance Armstrong zu sprechen: der ehemalige siebenfache Tour de France Champion ist ein gereifter Athlet, dessen Zenit bereits 4-6 Jahre zurückliegt.

Welche Lehre lässt sich aus dem Verhalten der Veranstalter ziehen? "I Am Not Banned From Life" pflegt Lance Armstrong seit seiner lebenslangen Sperre durch die USADA zu sagen. Dies stimmt. Jetzt liegt es an jedem einzelnen Publisher und Chefredakteur zu entscheiden, wie viel Raum Lance Armstrong und seine Charity in Ihrer Berichterstattung einnehmen sollen. Auf DNF-is-no-option.com war es der letzte Artikel über den texanischen Selbstvermarkter. Events, bei denen er als Partner auftritt schauen zukünftig auch in die Röhre.

Der Original-Artikel des CCES vom 28.09.2012:

Doing the wrong thing for the right reasons?

Recently, the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) asserted a number of anti-doping rule violations against Lance Armstrong and proposed the appropriate sanctions for these violations as provided for under the World Anti-Doping Code. Mr. Armstrong had the right to contest these assertions and the proposed sanctions at an independent hearing conducted by three independent arbitrators certified by the United States Association of Arbitrators. Mr. Armstrong chose to waive his right to this hearing. Mr. Armstrong’s decision to waive his right to the hearing meant that he would be subject to the violations and sanctions asserted by USADA. The sanctions against Mr. Armstrong include a lifetime ban from participation in all sporting activities that fall under the jurisdiction of the World Anti-Doping Code. In the United States, this would include any sporting event which occurs under the auspices of a World Anti-Doping Code-compliant sport governing body.

We saw this play out recently when Mr. Armstrong sought to participate in the Chicago Marathon. The Chicago Marathon is a sporting event certified by USA Track & Field. Hence, the organizing committee for the Chicago Marathon were obliged, under the terms of his lifetime sanction, to deny Mr. Armstrong entry as a participant.

Mr. Armstrong has now sought to enter the Half Full Triathlon of Maryland on October 7, 2012. The Half Full Triathlon of Maryland is an event certified by USA Triathlon – whose events are subject to the World Anti-Doping Code. Therefore, as with the Chicago Marathon, the Half Full Triathlon should deny Mr. Armstrong entry into their event. If they choose to allow Mr. Armstrong to compete in their certified event, they may be subject to discipline imposed by USA Triathlon.

The Half Full Triathlon of Maryland has chosen to become a non-certified event to allow Mr. Armstrong to compete. The loss of the certification by USA Triathlon appears to be of little consequence to the Half Full Triathlon, while the added revenue generated by having Mr. Armstrong compete is of great value to the event. The mission of the Half Full Marathon is to raise money for cancer. Mr. Armstrong’s Livestrong Foundation has raised millions of dollars for cancer research and Mr. Armstrong himself is a cancer survivor.[***]

No one is against raising money to fight cancer. But, by finding a way to skirt the doping sanction that Mr. Armstrong is under, is the Half Full Triathlon potentially doing more harm than good? The reason doping is banned in sport is simple. The use of banned substances is potentially harmful to the health of athletes who choose to use them. If athletes, who choose to take this health risk by doping, are allowed to do so with impunity, then this places pressure on all athletes to use doping substances and methods and to place their own health at risk. The overwhelming majority of athletes do not want to take that risk. They want clean sport and they want to compete against clean athletes. Perhaps even more disturbing, is the impact on young children if doping is seen to be implicitly condoned by athletes and event organizers. Young children would understand that doping is one way to succeed in sport. And being young, they would not have the necessary maturity to be able to make their own informed decision to dope or not. The health consequences of doping for young children can sometimes be even more catastrophic than they are for adult athletes. 

By allowing Mr. Armstrong to compete in their event, the Half Full Triathlon is putting the extra money they will take in (admittedly to help in the fight against cancer), ahead of the health and welfare of the children of their state and country.

*: Doing the wrong thing for the right reasons, CCES

**: Triathlons Part Waters for Armstrong: Despite a Doping Ban, His Presence Sends Enrollments Soaring, WSJ

***: Just want to clarify a few things about Half Full & Rev3, Richie Cunningham

****: Editor's note: Livestrong's mission is to "fight to improve the lives of people affected by cancer". There is currently no evidence, that Livestrong or Lance Armstrong have donated significant amounts of USD ("millions") for cancer research.