About 40 years ago, two distinguished scholars Jurgen Ruesch and Gregory Bateson wrote about the meaning of success in the North American culture:
“The end justifies the means, and the success performs evil and dishonest actions. If there is a possibility, it is automatically perceived as a challenge, even if you respond to this challenge could lead to break the law, but if an individual is caught in the act of illegal uses of shortcuts he is considered a loser. It is not important what he does but the fact that others allow him to get away with it ” (The social matrix of psychiatry, 1968).
And further on:
“The American people have a rich mythology of people who have reached the success: the myths of Ford, Rockefeller and Carnegie idealize the free initiative and the possibility of poor people to become rich and powerful. Admiration for this success goes hand in hand, however, with the condemn of the activities of dishonest industrial magnates. People are however ready to turn a blind eye to questionable ways of acting of a successful person if his behavior is then tempered by good works, offers for charity, fundraising for foundations and other public institutions. ”
So people fraud or in the case of Armstrong use doping because there is an opportunity. The important thing is not to be taken and he has succeeded throughout his career. Now not to be considered a failure (and possibly fail even financially) he has decided to admit what he had denied until then. There is no repentance in this interview tv confession, merely the tale at the public of what he did and what it costs him (75 million in one day). Even his sponsors were not interested to know if he was a clean athletes, because what mattered to them was the return on investment (see the article by Claudio Gatti: http://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/notizie/2013- 01-15/caso-armstrong-doping-213438.shtml). Even for them it is important that their athlete wins and when someone is discovered may also make a good impression showing outraged. Perhaps the only time that Armstrong is in trouble is when he’s with his children that he had to give explanations involving personal affects and to whom he has the responsibility of the father who must first follow the rules if he wants they learn to respect them.
0 Responses to “The success rules in the Amstrong case”