Lance Armstrong Ethical Dilemma Case Study
Ethical Dilemma
The decision maker for the ethical dilemma for the lance Armstrong case is Chris Carmichael, the coach. The decisions are: To always overlook the use of PED or to never always overlook the use of PED. These two choices both have undesirable outcomes.
To always overlook the use of PED: This option is undesirable because it the discovery of PED usage will lead to termination from the sport, resulting in failed coaching business.
Never overlook the use of PED: This option us undesirable because it will mean that coaching business will not develop.
Utilitarianism:
The stakeholders that have been identified are: Sponsors, administrators, athletes, The UCI, competitors, media, competitors. All reasonably foreseeable consequences have been identified in relation to each party. Both negative and positive consequences are constructed for the couch discouraging the illicit drug usage.
To respect the contractual agreement: Positive
• Sponsors will continue funding sporting events
• Drugs cause harm or injury to athletes; the health and well-being of the athletes will not be compromised
• When an athlete uses drugs, it is unfair to fellow competitors; not upholding commutative justice
• The use of drugs in sports affects society’s view of sport in society and society’s trust in athletes
• The completive sport will remain between athletes natural abilities and not scientific intervention
To respect the contractual agreement: Negative
• Loss of sponsorship for not winning
• Performance enhancing drug using athletes will seek out another couch
• Loss of autonomy; Loss of ability to make a business decision
To never respect contractual agreement: Positive
• Chris Carmichaels coaching business will benefit from athletes using PEDs
• Athletes will have enhanced performance; resulting in higher opportunity to win
To never respect contractual agreement: Negative
• Sponsors will withdraw sponsorship because of negative association
The decision maker for the ethical dilemma for the lance Armstrong case is Chris Carmichael, the coach. The decisions are: To always overlook the use of PED or to never always overlook the use of PED. These two choices both have undesirable outcomes.
To always overlook the use of PED: This option is undesirable because it the discovery of PED usage will lead to termination from the sport, resulting in failed coaching business.
Never overlook the use of PED: This option us undesirable because it will mean that coaching business will not develop.
Utilitarianism:
The stakeholders that have been identified are: Sponsors, administrators, athletes, The UCI, competitors, media, competitors. All reasonably foreseeable consequences have been identified in relation to each party. Both negative and positive consequences are constructed for the couch discouraging the illicit drug usage.
To respect the contractual agreement: Positive
• Sponsors will continue funding sporting events
• Drugs cause harm or injury to athletes; the health and well-being of the athletes will not be compromised
• When an athlete uses drugs, it is unfair to fellow competitors; not upholding commutative justice
• The use of drugs in sports affects society’s view of sport in society and society’s trust in athletes
• The completive sport will remain between athletes natural abilities and not scientific intervention
To respect the contractual agreement: Negative
• Loss of sponsorship for not winning
• Performance enhancing drug using athletes will seek out another couch
• Loss of autonomy; Loss of ability to make a business decision
To never respect contractual agreement: Positive
• Chris Carmichaels coaching business will benefit from athletes using PEDs
• Athletes will have enhanced performance; resulting in higher opportunity to win
To never respect contractual agreement: Negative
• Sponsors will withdraw sponsorship because of negative association