Lance Armstrong And Frankeinsteins Monster - A Socio-narrative Perspective.

Mary Shelley's novel, Frankenstein, tells the story of a budding young scientist whose unconventional scientific experiment creates the well-known monster. The Daemon then seeks to administer revenge on his creator as he is rejected from society. The parallels between Frankenstein's monster and Lance Armstrong were first drawn by David Walsh, a renowned cycling commentator: 'You (Dr Ferrarri) keep doing your job as Frankenstein and I'll be the best monster you've ever created.' In this sense Armstrong was the metaphorical monster, created by a cacophony of performance-enhancing drugs.

Armstrong more than fulfilled his promise of becoming Ferrari's greatest monster, winning seven consecutive Tours de France. Armstrong maintained that he was not a monster but a clean athlete. This story of being a clean athlete parallels the monster in Shelley's story as Frankenstein's daemon also wishes to convince others that he too is a 'normal' human. Armstrong discovered that once outed as a monster he too was shunned by society.

Arthur Frank suggests that stories work socially for their teller and help create an identity. In the case of Armstrong his story of being the clean athlete allows him to occupy in the social space of 'American Hero' and fulfil the quest narrative. This quest narrative is based around the 'American Dream', a reflection of the meritocratic society. The capacity to tell this story for Armstrong attracted fame and fortune including lucrative sponsors such as Nike. So it can be seen how this story has worked socially for Armstrong giving him social standing. This social standing was enhanced as the story of being a clean athlete worked hand in hand with being a survivor of cancer. This heightened the work his story could do socially as not only was he viewed as an American hero, but as a bastion for cancer sufferers. This restitution narrative served to connect Armstrong with cancer sufferers and survivors as it served as a realisation that the dreaded C word doesn't mean the American dream of fame and fortune is unobtainable. Armstrong's story then was pertinent within the cancer sufferer/survivor community and served as a beacon of hope.

David Walsh's comments about Armstrong becoming the best monster that Frankenstein ever created are seemingly true in terms of success on the road but what Ferrari couldn't have anticipated was how the monster and his story served to be a success in terms of giving hope and being a bastion for cancer sufferers. Once Armstrong had told his story he truly was the best monster ever created, as the telling of his story worked in a way that he was deemed heroic, and even likened to the Greek God Achilles in his restitution. But what happened when Achilles is uncovered to be more akin to Frankenstein's monster than the Greek God? When the case against Armstrong in 2012 began to build pace, the hero initially maintained his story in an attempt to hold on to the fame and fortune to which he was now accustomed. The evidence mounted against him and the story and the social space of the clean athlete became untenable. He was forced to admit that he was Michele Ferrari's monster. He was no longer the hero, for so long he had been the flagship of a meritocratic society, this story was now unattainable to Armstrong. The stories that worked socially were now pillars of his fraud. He was now the villain. The fall out deepened as sponsors withdrew and narratives which he had utilised closed. Even the narrative of being a cancer survivor and his restitution was quickly being narrowed as he was widely viewed as a fraud before a cancer survivor.

It is interesting to see the contrasting narratives available to Armstrong and how it impacts upon the social space he occupies within society. Armstrong's identity was that of a cancer survivor and a champion. However since the truth behind the doping allegations came to fruition Armstrong's narrative resources have narrowed meaning he can no longer occupy that identity. This exemplifies how stories and narratives we utilise impact upon the social spaces we occupy and the identities we construct. So what now? In a recent interview his bravado had disappeared. He's no longer attempting to construct an identity of an infallible champion but instead as a welcoming, humble, family man who runs marathons for Livestrong raising thousands for cancer research. Is it the case that this discredited champion is now just an average Joe? Or is it case that Armstrong knows stories work socially and that he needs to create a new 'public-friendly' identity? So what do you see? An ex-American Hero or a real American Hero? He has turned his seemingly hapless position and has used it for the good of those suffering with cancer. When was he more of a hero? Stood on the Champs Élyseé or now, pounding the streets raising money for cancer research?