Ethics

I wish I had more time this semester to work with Darden’s Ethics professors and write a case on doping in cycling. After so many spirited discussions with my classmates on the ideas of “right” and “wrong”, “sinners” and “saints” in business; I really want to hear what they think about the issue. On Friday, our professor urged us to move from having an “opinion” to having an “argument”.
Everywhere I look I am reminded of the complexity of the issue and how everyone has an “opinion”…but a convincing and workable “argument” about what to do? Inevitably, passionate emotions and experiences enter into the fray and cloud an otherwise lucid argument. Even the words we choose can inadvertently establish tangential positions or opinions.
Some questions I have: How should clean riders like me feel about our accomplishments when we’re beaten by athletes who we know are dirty? What do we do with the “Dirty Generation” (Guys who rose through the ranks by doping but now try to race clean while saying they never doped)? What role does the press play? In terms of a rider “associated” with a doping scandal, what are their options for racing until proven/disproven (IE Rock Racing)? What “due process” does an athlete have? How the hell are we going to clean up the Pro Peloton while the dirty ones are still racing? Does their mere presence ensure that we are “racing to the bottom”?
So many questions. It’s so hard to articulate my thoughts. I have never doped and I never will. But does this help me speak intelligently and objectively about the crisis facing my sport?
I was reminded of this today when I saw an article on Tammy Thomas.
One question that comes to mind: can photographic evidence a “guilty” verdict make?
Yes, Tammy Thomas is a woman.