A dilemma is supposed to be a problem that offers no obvious solution. When it comes to ethics it is quite common to support one ethical judgment or the contrary. You can always be or not to be in favour of abortion. You could even have mixed feelings on the issue. But a dilemma defies common reasoning. You cannot even figure out what the most correct answer to the problem could be.
As unusual as it seems, there's an ethical dilemma happening in the last few months. I refer to the case of Floyd Landis and his supposedly doped victory at the Tour de France 06. Well, it is quite clear that Landis behaviour regarding the use of some kind of doping substance if proved, should be condemned. But from that point on, things start to be more and more obscure.
What should authorities do?
1. Should they declare the Tour 06's winner was Oscar Pereiro? It seems like he deserves it.
2. Should they ask Landis to return the money he earned for being considered the winner of the race?
3. What about the collateral earnings he enjoyed? What about the collateral money people like Pereiro couldn't earn?
The problem with cycling is just getting more puzzling. Bjarne Rijs the 1996 Tour de France Champion declared last week he used EPO to improve his performance. What should we do now? We should consider he did not win the race? Should we change the whole Tour de France history? And how can we be sure the one who made second did not use some substance too?
The problem is even more difficult to resolve if we compare Rijs' case and Landis'. Landis is being judged severely in public. Rijs has admitted having done the same and nobody asks him to submit from his position. Should Rijs too return the money he earned for winning the Tour 96? And the subsequent earnings derived from that? And why should Landis, then? Rijs has built his prestige on the sole basis of his results at the french race. Should he be removed from his current job, too? Should someone else deserve his position?