Lance Armstrong’s decision to admit having used performance enhancers while engaging in cycling tournaments can be termed as a breach of contract. The terms and conditions of engaging in cycling competition are expressively specified in engagement contracts and one must accept to abide by them before becoming a cycling tournament participant (Negro et al., 2018). As such, Armstrong violated the terms of the contract and his contract termination is, therefore, legally justified.
The termination of a cyclist's contract of participating in tournaments based on their admittance to having engaged in doping is not justified under the ethical concepts of utilitarianism and Kantian ethics. The termination of a contract based on an individual’s acceptance of using performance enhancers does not result in a positive outcome (Sierra, 2020). The act disadvantages the competitor by depriving them of their employment. Instead, a better solution would be sought since it was in the interest of the tournament participant to say the truth which is considered as a means to achieve a positive outcome.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
References
Negro, M., Marzullo, N., Caso, F., Calanni, L., & D’Antona, G. (2018). Opinion paper: scientific, philosophical and legal consideration of doping in sports. European journal of applied physiology, 118(4), 729-736.
Sierra Vélez, L. (2020). The dignity of persons: Kantian ethics and utilitarianism (Doctoral dissertation, University of St Andrews).
