By Michael Kelley ’14 & Michael Kowaleski ’14

Armstrong: Hero no more?

Kelley: “Enough is enough,” Lance Armstrong said last week in regards to his fight against allegations of banned substance use in his cycling career. The fight is over for the man who fought his whole life, defeating cancer and winning a record seven straight Tour de France titles. While he did not admit guilt, the USADA is attempting to strip his titles and give him a lifelong ban. How does this mess change his legacy?
There have been so many substance abuse cases lately that my eyes just numbly scroll over the new ones. Except this one. Armstrong was a badass and an absolute legend, and his accomplishments are astonishing. His recent fall has been even more shocking, further leading me down the sad path of giving in to the “too good to be true” sports story.

But I implore you to look past the roads, off the bike, and into the positives. His fight and victory against cancer has inspired millions of cancer patients worldwide, inspiring hope into their discouraging conditions. The Armstrong foundation has raised over $470 million for cancer research since 1997, providing new and improved treatment methods.

As sports fans we have trouble looking past the field or the court, but in this case we must. There is so much more to this than the records.

Kowaleski: This is tough for me to write about. Lance Armstrong is (was?) one of the closest things to a true hero that America has had in a very long time. You’ve already mentioned the contributions to cancer treatment and the biking world. He’s inspired so many people and done so much for the world in general in terms of finding the cure for cancer.“LIVESTRONG” was a meme before memes, a physical embodiment of the support for cancer treatment, the wristbands worn by everyone from all walks of life. All of these accomplishments are based off of and inspired by his successes at the Tour de France.

But the mere thought of Lance Armstrong cheating during those races puts the whole “LIVESTRONG” movement in a different light. If Armstrong cheated, all the good work that LIVESTRONG has done over all these years has been built on a lie. Does that erase all of the great things it’s done? Of course not. But will it garner the same support that it has? Not a chance.

That’s probably the thing I’ll take away most from this event. I can understand the exhaustion from constantly defending yourself. I get that. But this decision to give up fighting the charges will have more repercussions than just Armstrong’s cycling legacy. It will impact LIVESTRONG most of all.

Rookie > Veteran

Kelley: Five rookie quarterbacks will be under center in week 1 of the NFL season. Add in the six second-year quarterbacks and that makes 11 field generals starting with less than two years of experience.

We all knew Andrew Luck and RGIII were locks to start. Brandon Weeden was fairly certain. But Ryan Tannehill and Russell Wilson? No way! Didn’t see this one coming. How did the NFL go from a league that groomed rookie QB’s for several years to baptizing them by fire week 1? How did this level of trust form?
First, consider the fact that the college game has become better at developing “pro-ready” quarterbacks. But besides that, look at the teams starting these young guns: the Colts, Redskins, Browns, Dolphins and Seahawks. They have all endured hardships and their fan bases are frustrated. What better way to infuse hope than injecting a young quarterback into the mix? It also helps that their predecessors (Joe Flacco, Cam Newton, Andy Dalton) have experienced great success.

So don’t be surprised with all of this business. But if you do find yourself living and dying (mainly dying) with your inexperienced quarterback this season, I send you my regards.

Kowaleski: The youth movement in the NFL is predicated on several things: desperation, the ultimate “win-now-or-get-out” mentality of NFL teams, and the mad desire of fans to see their newest toys in action. But the triumph of young quarterbacks is mostly due to one trend: the success of NFL-style offenses in the NCAA. More and more college teams are utilizing offenses used at the professional level, and as such, the quarterbacks are more able to jump right in and absorb the schemes designed by the NFL’s offensive coordinators.

Take Ryan Tannehill of my Miami Dolphins, for instance. His starting job was created by a number of factors: DavidGarrard’s surprise surgery, Matt Moore’s apparent struggles adapting to the West Coast system, etc. But I believe that his comfort level with the offense is primarily attributed to the fact that the Dolphins’ offensive coordinator, Mike Sherman, was his coach at Texas A&M. Thus, Tannehill’s learning curve is greatly reduced, and he is much more NFL-ready than he would have been coming out of a different offense. Of course, he doesn’t have anyone to throw to, but that’s besides the point…

Disagree with one of our opinions? Write a letter to the Mike’d UP guys ([email protected]) with your opinion and a reason behind it.