By Jim Ferstle
Last month New York's Carnegie Hall Notables series hosted a program named Redemption Song featuring musicians who were or had recovered from substance abuse issues. Those looking at sports books, magazine articles, or cable television sports documentaries might be inclined to think the same message is being sold about once star athletes attempting to rehabilitate their images after being tarnished by doping convictions or admissions.
2003 Twin Cities Marathon champion, Eddy Hellebuyck, an Olympian for Belgium back in 1996, admitted in a Runner's World story that he took the blood booster erythropoietin(EPO)and was using the drug when he won the TC race. Hellebuyck had been convicted of EPO use in 2004, but had steadfastly denied using EPO until now. In the article he said his confession was inspired by guilt and that he now regretted using the drug.
Marion Jones tearfully admitted that she had made mistakes by not asking what she was given by her coaches during her career, and acknowledging that what she was given was doping products. Her mistake, she says now, was not that she "knowingly" took drugs, but that she lied about the fact that she knew what she was taking was a banned substance. Testimony given by some of those people she "trusted" contradict Jones' statements. They say she knew what she was doing.
Both athletes said they sought "redemption." As image consultants or spin doctors would say, these athletes want to reconstruct their image, reinvent themselves in political lingo. Until today, Jones had pretty clear sailing. The interviewers on her book tour didn't ask the tough questions. Jones stuck to her script of "making mistakes" and attempting to be a role model and advocate for those who had paid for their sins and wanted to regain respect.
Hellebuyck wants to continue coaching. Jones wants to play basketball and regain some of her athletic fame. Many athletes who competed against them aren't so forgiving. They cheated us out of medals and money, they say, what about that? Jones returned her Olympic medals, but has no plans to return her prize or endorsement money. The Twin Cities Marathon folks are contemplating what they should do about the title and prize money Hellebuyck won in their event. Should they strip Eddy of his "title?" Should they demand he return his prize money?
Another conundrum in all this is the desire of anti-doping officials to not only catch those who dope, but also find and punish their suppliers, the "pushers" and enablers that make doping possible. Should there be "plea bargaining" for doping "criminals?" Or should we just go after them with the full power of the law, recognizing of course that proving one assisted or enabled doping without an admission from the "enabler" or athlete is a very difficult, if not impossible task in the legal system.
Hellebuyck named a fellow marathoner and doctor, Russian Leonid Shvetsov, as his enabler, his supplier. Would he have done that if he knew that people would go after him for past prize money? Would anybody confess, unless they were, like Jones faced with a plea deal to bargain down prison time? Is it a "fairness issue?" A justice issue? One thing it is not is a universally agreed upon solution. Do those who "cheat" deserve "redemption?"
How do we know when seeking redemption is a legitimate attempt to right a past wrong or make up for one's sins? How do we know when it's simply just another con? Is attempted rehabilitation, draconian sanctions, or neither of these options part of the "right" solution to the doping problem in sports? Athletes know that image campaigns, like those mastered by the most successful politicians, built their fame, so it's only natural that they turn to the same delivery method to rehabilitate their images.
Lance Armstrong is arguably as impressive an image creator and protector as he was an elite cyclist. But will he survive the latest assault of another athlete seeking "redemption" of sorts, Floyd Landis? Used to be that athletes only needed a good coach and a great work ethic, plus the right parents to bequeath on them the correct genetic profile, as a pathway to sports success. Now, like politicians, they need the cash of donors(sponsors for athletes), and a crackerjack staff of image consultants.
As the camera commercial with Andre Agassi as pitchman claimed: "Image is everything." Especially if you're seeking redemption.
A nice discussion. I'm of the opinion that athletes are of course entitled to seek "redemption" as best they can, and certainly the more open and honest they are about the past the more favorably I'll view them. But, we as fans of the sport don't have to give total forgiveness. If the cycle of "cheat, deny, admit, be forgiven" is allowed to go forward, what deterent is there for a potential doper? I'm perfectly fine with giving a modest bit of recognition and appreciation to someone who has "found religion" for coming clean, but the stain doesn't, and shouldn't, go away. It may be sad for the individual that they are never trusted again, are the butt of jokes, and may be subject to legal claw-backs; but, there is a simple way to avoid all of this. Don't do it. I've turned fairly cynical regarding the elite of our sport, and am now not shocked at any positive test. But, there is hope: deploying new tests unannounced, relying on evidence other than tests (drug purchases, testimony, etc), and hopefully universal banking of samples for future testing, all are making doping a riskier proposition. Maybe in another decade I can watch an olympic final and be fairly certain that I'm watching only clean athletes, but that's not an option currently.
ReplyDeletedd--your cynicism is warranted and clearly justified especially as it relates to athletics. After so many positive tests with these people, that feeling of another kick to the nuts just does not go away. It's. damn miracle the Tour de France can even go on under such a taint.
ReplyDelete