CHAPTER 8

“Everybody’s Doing It”: Getting Ahead by Cheating

“In all seven of your Tour de France victories, did you ever take banned substances or blood dope?”Oprah Winfrey has an uncanny ability to cut to the chase. Looking battered and defeated as he listened to her matter-of-fact question, Lance Armstrong softly muttered “Yes.” “In your opinion was it humanly possible to win the Tour de France without doping seven times in a row?” “Not in my opinion,” he said with his head hung low.

In the remainder of the 2013 interview that for millions was must-see TV, Armstrong detailed how he had repeatedly taken illegal drugs en route to triumphing in the world’s most prestigious cycling competition every year from 1999-2005. These included strength enhancers – testosterone, cortisone, and human growth hormone – as well as erythropoietin, which increases endurance by elevating oxygen levels in the bloodstream. His revelation was shocking not only because headmitted to having cheated in winning the Tour de France. He also fessed up to having left a long trail of lies. For over a decade, he’d adamantly denied doping allegations.[1]

Figure 1 – Lance Armstrong rides to victory in the Tour de France.


But long before these allegations surfaced, Lance Armstrong had achieved an unprecedented feat. For seven straight years he was the fastest person to cycle approximately 2200 miles, much of it through the steep and rugged French Alps, in 21 segments over 23 days. Moreover, his streak came against unimaginable odds.In 1996 Armstrong was diagnosed with metastatic testicular cancer, a life-threatening disease. After two surgeries and four rounds of chemotherapy, he returned to competitive training in 1998. And just one year later, he triumphed in Paris for the first time. Reflecting on his tremendous period of glory before the ensuing storm of controversy, he told Oprah: “You overcome the disease, you win the Tour de France seven times, you have a happy marriage, you have children, I mean, it’s just this mythic perfect story.” [2]

Armstrong’s story would become even more mythic as he assumed a leading role in the fight against cancer. He established the Livestrong Foundation, and in 2004 it partnered with Nike in creating the bright yellow “LIVESTRONG WRISTBAND.” This fundraising campaign became an overnight sensation, as people found it fashionable to wear. I remember each guest receiving one at a bat mitzvah I attended in 2005, wheremy cousin proudly proclaimed in her speech that she would donate a portion of her gifts to the foundation.

ThoughLance Armstrong had become one of the most popular Americans, within just a few years he would go from champ to chump. Amidst widespread doping allegations, people started crossing out the “V” on their wristband so that it now said “LIE STRONG.” By the time Oprah interviewed him in 2013, his reputation had tarnished. Yet, their conversation was still so chilling because it vividly confirmed what many people had suspected yet still had a hard time fathoming could actually be true. This one-time hero had not only cheated and then lied about having done so; he’d also exploited his heroism to raise millions of dollars in charitable contributions. [3]

Figure 2 – The wristband the Livestrong Foundation created was initially a symbol of heroism…and then of deception

The Lance Armstrong story added a shocking new twist to a drama that had been playing out in professional sports for many years: athletes taking performance-enhancing drugs to gain an unfair advantage. Nowhere was this cheating scandal bigger than in baseball. Twice during the 2000s, Congress investigated juicing by Major League players. Some of the most accomplishedmenof their generation – including Roger Clemens, Mark McGwire, Alex Rodriguez, and Barry Bonds – were either proven to have participated in, or suspected of, doping. Forty-three times in baseball history, a player has hit 50 or more homeruns in a single season. Twenty-four of those feats occurred during the “Steroid Era” from the late 1980s until the late 2000s. [4]

Figure 3 – Doping allegationstaintBarry Bonds homerun records.

Surely, there must have been bigger issues more deserving of our lawmakers’ scarce time than professional athletes using drugs.This issue took center stage is because celebrity doping is a visible form of cheating. These athletes are in the public eye and serve as role models for millions of kids. Lawmakers’ fear was that if this wrongdoing were not publicly condemned, children would become corrupted by the message that cheating was an acceptable way to get ahead in life. Moreover, we have a cultural fascination with people who fall from grace. Bill Cosby, the one-time, all-American family man and black hero alleged to have sexually assaulted several women, is a more recent illustration. Because they’re in the public eye, celebrities purportedly should be held to higher ethical standards than others. [5]

The demonizing of Lance Armstrong and other athletes who have taken performance-enhancing drugs characterizes a theme common across social problems. The dominant frame focuses our attention on individual irresponsibility; in this case, that cheaters are deviant individuals who choose shortcuts to success instead of playing by the rules. Although it’s reasonable to view these individuals as having a moral weakness, there are other useful – and complementary – ways to see this problem. The fact that people from all walks of life take performance-enhancing drugs reveals that cheaters are, in an important sense, conformists rather than deviants. From a sociological perspective, they are testimony of the premium our culture places on getting ahead and how the intense competition to succeed leads individuals to do whatever it takes to win. [6]

THE NATIONAL PASTTIME

“The first time I took Adderall, I was a sophomore at Brown University, lamenting to a friend the possibility of my plight: a five-page paper due the next afternoon on a book I had only just begun reading.” Casey Schwartz goes on to describe how being introduced to the magic blue pill was her ticket to making it through college and eventually launching a successful career. Adderall kept her awake and focused when she needed to pull all-nighters to complete courseassignments. She recalls after taking it for the first time feeling “locked in a passionate embrace with the book I was reading and the thoughts I was having about it, which tumbled out of nowhere and built into what seemed an amazing pile of riches.”[7]

Adderall is an amphetaminestimulant commonly prescribed to treat Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), the symptoms of which include significant difficulty focusing and concentrating. Casey Schwartz did not have ADHD. People like her who take Adderall do not do so legally to compensate for a medical deficitbut illegally toperform at a higher level. The drug can be purchasedon the black market from individuals who sell their prescribed pills at a markup, or obtained by lying to a therapist in order to demonstrate a medical need. She did both. [8]

Figure 4 – Using Adderallhelped Casey Schwartz launch her successful journalism career.

After receiving her Ivy League degree, Casey Schwartz earned a Masters from University College London. She has since been a staff writer forthe Daily Beast. A top press published her first book. These are markers of an accomplished journalist – and one who doesn’t have an asterisk next to her name, as Barry Bonds does beside his single-season and career homerun records. Nor have her credentials been stripped from her, as Lance Armstrong’s seven Tour de France victories were from him.Even though shetook Adderall for many years and wrote a tell-all account about her experiences for the New York Times Magazine, she has not been publiclyvilified for cheating.[9]

Nor have the countless other people who have used so-called “smart drugs” en route to academic and professional success. In addition to Adderall and other drugs meant to treat ADHD – including Ritalin and Concerta – another popular “smart drug” is Provigil. When used as directed, it treats various sleep disorders. For people who do not suffer from these disorders but whose jobs require them to perform at a high level on minimal sleep, this drug has considerable non-medical appeal. Given the value so many workplaces put on high productivity, Provigil offers a remedy for the problem of listlessness and sleepiness on the job. [10]

There are also performance-enhancing drugs for people prone to stage fright when in front of an audience. Most of us have felt these jitters at one time or another. Maybe it was during a class presentation or while acting in the school play. The heart races and palms become sweaty. I recall experiencing stage fright like I never had before the first time I was in front of a college class as a teaching assistant in graduate school at Northwestern University during the early nineties. I felt a pit in my stomach and couldn’t stop stuttering. People who frequently experience these jitters may be tempted to try getting ahold of Inderal. When used as directed, it treats high blood pressure. In situations of stage fright, it enhances performance by creating a calming effect on the mind and body. I’ve never taken it, but instead chose to learn how to handle feeling anxious in front of students. Many performers, particularly musicians, opt instead for the quick fix. [11]

Figure 5 – Many classical musicians take Inderal to avoid stage fright.

The name “performance-enhancing drugs” is somewhat of a misnomer. In focusing on successful people who’ve taken them, it seems obvious that the drugs gave them an unfair advantage. Yet, while there are professional athletes like Barry Bonds whose achievements went off the charts after doping, there are others like Jay Gibbons. The season after the Baltimore Orioles outfielder is alleged to have used human growth hormone, his homerun total actually went down from 23 to 10.Of the 89 baseball players alleged in a 2007 report to have doped, only slightly more than half (46) had improved their performance after the time of the alleged juicing. There is similarly uncertainty about whether amphetamine stimulants are truly “smart drugs” when taken non-medically. Research has shown that while some individuals, like Casey Schwartz, significantly benefit from taking them, these drugs have little across-the-board benefit for off-label users. Of course, just because one doesn’t get a leg up from cheating doesn’t diminish its wrongfulness. Someone who copies wrong answers from a classmate’s exam or lifts a poorly written essay from the internet is still a cheater.[12]

Regardless of how effective performance-enhancing drugs actually are in giving users an unfair advantage, they are certainly revolutionary. The fact that there exists an array of pharmacological shortcuts for getting a competitive edge at school, at work, or in sports reflects dramatic technologicaladvances over the past several decades. Of course, it’s not hard to find examples of cheating long before it was possible to doso by popping a pill. Indeed, the motivation to use these drugs has deep-seated roots in our society.I’m sure it’s not news to you that students of all ages commonly use cheat sheets during exams orcopy answers from the person sitting next to them. The impetus to cheat continues when people are applying for jobs, as it’s easy to get away with misrepresenting credentials on a resume.Cheating is also prevalent in the workplace. For example, car mechanics maydounnecessary repairs in order to meet quotas for the amount of revenue their work is expected to generate. Lawyers may exaggerate their billable hours. And then, there is the place cheating occurs most often: on taxes. People of all income levels and backgrounds are prone tofudge numbers in order to pay less than they legitimately owethe government. [13]

Despite this range of everyday examples, our conventional wisdom is that cheaters are entirely unlike you and me. Whereas we follow by the rules, they take shortcuts to success. Consequently, we tend to see the motivation to cheat as stemming from character flaws that make particular individuals inclined to play unfairly rather than dowhat’s right. This belief is what has propelled the crusade in recent years against Lance Armstrong and other athletes who’ve taken performance-enhancing drugs. The reality, however, is that cheating commonly occurs in many contexts acrossAmerican society. Though we’ve most often heard about baseball players takingperformance-enhancing drugs, cheating has become the national pastime for people in so many different walks of life. It’senraging that there is often lots of public angst over the latest incident of doping in sports because of the purportedly damaging message this sends to kids. We oughtto be alarmedthat kids aregettingthis and so many other immoral messagesall the time from anarray of influential adults well beyond athletes.

The fact that “everyone is doing it”indicates why we need to look atcheatingdifferently than wetypicallydo. Becoming outraged about specific individuals who sidestep the rules overlookshowour culture givesall of us the message that it’s acceptable to gain unfair advantages.We must expose the social forces that produce cheating. Embracing a sociological perspective highlightsthe similarities among all cheaters, regardless of how or where they take shortcuts to success. This perspective also enables us to see what cheaters share in common with those of us who play by the rules.Thinking sociologically offers an alternative to the dominant frame, which depicts star athletes who take performance-enhancing drugs as rule-breakers yet regards people who usesimilar drugs at school or at work asrespectable. Our aim is to expand upon the conventional wisdom that peoplelike Barry Bonds and Casey Schwartz are incomparable to one another because sports is all about winning butcompetition is of much lesser importance in other areas of life. We need to recognize the array of contexts that, in fact, closely resemble sports in terms of the primacy placed on being number one. [14]

PLAYING TO WIN

Just as there is only one World Series or Super Bowl champion, in recent decadesthe United States as a whole has increasingly become what the economists Philip J. Cook and Robert H. Frank call a winner-take-all society.This means the people who performthe very best receive most of the rewards, those who perform second bestget many fewer, and everyone else gets comparatively little. Across many areas of our society, the growing disparity between the few who winand the majority who don’t reflects the dramatic rise in economic inequality since the late 1970s (see Chapter 1). [15]

Just about everywhere we lookwe can see evidenceof the disproportionate rewards given to people who perform exceptionally versus those who perform well.Although these two groups have always been rewarded unequally, the gulf between them has significantly widened over the past several decades. Consider these examples:

  • The pop singer at the top of the iTunes charts who sells out stadium concerts versus the talented but obscure musician who plays live gigs at local bars.
  • The inventor whose patent earns millions in royalties versus the salaried scientist doing important laboratory experiments.
  • The heart surgeon who receives many times more compensation than does the primary care physician.
  • The star tenured professor who makes several hundred thousand dollars a year while the adjunct instructor struggles to make ends meet.

There are many other illustrations of our winner-take-all society besides these. Perhaps you can think of some that pertainto fields and endeavors most familiar to you. [16]

Figure 6 – Likesports, pop music is a clear place wherewinners take all.


The fact that winners get such large rewards gives individuals an incentive to be the absolute best theycan be. That’s a good thing to the extent that people pursue greatness in legitimate ways, such as by making sacrifices and working harder. The problem arises whenthe desire to be number one fuels the impetus totake shortcuts. Ken Caminiti, who played third base for the San Diego Padres in the 1990s and took performance-enhancing drugs en route to winning the Most Valuable Player award, told Sports Illustrated that at first he “felt like a cheater.” But then, he “looked around and everybody was doing it.”Caminiti elaborated:

If a young player were to ask me what to do, I’m not going to tell him it’s bad. Look at all the money in the game. You have a chance to set your family up, to get your daughter into a better school…So I can’t say “Don’t do it” when the guy next to you is as big as a house and he’s going to take your job and make the money.

As in sports, it’s not hard to see why a student or a worker would cheat. After all, the reward structure encourages it.Seeing how different social contexts fuel intense competition to bethe bestexposes the roots of cheating and explains why it routinely occurs. This is the story beneath the story that we need to continue unpacking.[17]

School is where most peoplefirst learnabout our winner-take-all society. It’s also, not surprisingly, where many people cheat for the first time. Ironically, school is alsothe place many of us hear the strongest message that cheating is wrong. Teachers may be unaware of its prevalence or reluctant to talk about how often it occurs. They also may be hesitant to acknowledge thecompetitive academic pressures that drive it. My own teaching is a case in point. I believe I’m doing my job well when I impress upon my studentsthat the most important aspects of school are gaining new knowledge about the world and growing intellectually. I de-emphasize the significance of getting the best grades. Yet as a sociologist,I understand why manystudentsenter my classes with the opposite mindset andresistchanging it. Our relationship, after all, rests on the fact that I evaluate their performance. You know quite well that your GPA influencesthe opportunities available toyou after college.In our winner-take-all society, it can make a huge difference in future opportunities and earnings whether you get good grades versus top grades.