The Open UniversitySkip to content

Armstrong was a Cheat: A Reply to Eric Moore

Pike, Jon and Cordell, Sean (2019). Armstrong was a Cheat: A Reply to Eric Moore. Sports, Ethics and Philosophy (Early Access).

Full text available as:
Full text not publicly available (Accepted Manuscript)
Due to publisher licensing restrictions, this file is not available for public download until 14 July 2020
Click here to request a copy from the OU Author.
DOI (Digital Object Identifier) Link:
Google Scholar: Look up in Google Scholar


In this paper, we reply to Eric Moore’s argument that Lance Armstrong did not cheat, at least according to one, standard account of cheating. If that is the case, we argue, so much the worse for the standard account of cheating, since Armstrong was a cheat. We argue that the standard account of cheating fails on several counts: it specifies conditions that are not necessary for cheating: that cheating involves trying to secure an unfair advantage and that cheating depends on fair application of the rules. We dispute Moore’s claim that doping in the peloton was a convention that had normative force, and reject his anti-formalist analogy between doping in the peloton and bodily contact in basketball.

Item Type: Journal Item
Copyright Holders: 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
ISSN: 1751-133X
Keywords: Doping; cheating; Lance Armstrong; Eric Moore; conventions
Academic Unit/School: Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences (FASS) > Social Sciences and Global Studies > Philosophy
Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences (FASS) > Social Sciences and Global Studies
Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences (FASS)
Research Group: Childhood Youth and Sport Group (CYSG)
Item ID: 58647
Depositing User: Jon Pike
Date Deposited: 14 Jan 2019 13:31
Last Modified: 31 Jan 2020 22:37
Share this page:


Altmetrics from Altmetric

Citations from Dimensions

Actions (login may be required)

Policies | Disclaimer

© The Open University   contact the OU