Armstrong vs. Armstrong

It's a day of hero worship and hero trauma in America.

The top stories all across the spectrum were about what a hero Neil Armstrong was. Everybody is leading with that and probably will for a couple of days, unless we get another mass shooting or Israel's attack on Iran interrupting the news cycle.

Not to take anything away from Neil; he was the first man to set foot on the moon after all. But in what way is he more courageous than Buzz Aldrin, the second man to set foot on the moon? And how were either of them more courageous than Mike Collins, who stayed back in the orbiter?

I think it takes courage to sign up for the astronaut program. Once you're there, whether you're the first guy or the second guy to walk in space or play golf on the moon is pretty much up to the luck of the draw.

So let's dial back the hero worship.

Meanwhile, former hero Lance Armstrong is busy putting a happy face on his situation. He is rising above the fray, which some of his critics find disturbing.

Frankly, I think Lance is every bit as heroic as Neil. The only thing that disturbs me about Lance's "cheating" is how he pushed denial way past any decent limit. Every reasonable observer of Lance's career hasn't believed those denials for years.

My question is this; if Lance Armstrong, who was cheating, beat out 150 other guys who were also cheating, is he still a cheater?

Or was there a de facto level playing field?