Using one or two of Aristotle’s directions for inventing forensic arguments, either discuss or invent an argument that is relevant to a contemporary issue. For example, you might say (following Aristotle’s directions about how to appeal to equity [p. 209]) that we should consider Senator Craig’s circumstances and his unfortunate need to seek physical affection in a culture that abhors homosexuality. How can we harshly judge a man who is merely acting out his own nature in a clandestine fashion when American society leaves few respectable venues for people like him to be themselves? Then invent on the other side of the issue, using the same argumentative tack or another that Aristotle makes available. If there are arguments on both (or several) sides of every issue, what good does inventing them do for us? How have you benefited from your effort at analyzing or arguing from multiple perspectives in multiple forms?
One week following the conclusion of the 2006 Tour de France it was announced that tour victor Floyd Landis had tested positive for elevated levels of testosterone. Although certainly not the first time the integrity of professional cycling had been called into question, it quickly became one of the most high-profile scandals within the sport. The combination of its “high-stakes” nature and lengthy duration allowed the case to become a central focus regarding the continuing refinement and enforcement of definitive doping controls. However, to this day the case remains unsettled and both Landis and the International Cycling Union (UCI) have continued to assert varying forensic arguments in order to influence the final judgments.
Throughout the development of the scandal the UCI has relied almost exclusively on “witnesses” in order to make their case against Landis. The testimony of both personnel and scientific lab results of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)-accredited French National Laboratory for Doping Detection (LNDD) have, according to the UCI argument, indisputably and concretely demonstrated the wrong-doing of the tour winner. Dr. Gary Wadler of WADA summed up their line of argumentation in that, "The fact of the matter is the rules are quite clear: If a prohibited substance is on your body, that is doping.” As such, they assert that any and all applicable penalties should be levied per what Aristotle referred to as particular law.
On the other hand, Landis has utilized what has become known as the “kitchen sink defense” with explanations ranging from naturally occurring high levels of testosterone, drinking alcohol, dehydration, thyroid medication, to a conspiracy against him. The main line of argumentation ultimately advanced by his defense team however, was the lack of competency, reliability, and credibility within the LNDD. Not having any demonstrable test results of their own, Landis’ defense attempted to use the Aristotelian strategy of discrediting the UCI “witnesses”. Discrediting the personnel and associated lab results of the LNDD allowed the Landis defense to therefore create probable scenarios in which either: 1) Landis was not doping, or 2) that the case was unverifiable. In so doing the defense was reframing the case from one of applicable particular law to that of universal law upon which an equitable judgment should be made in his favor.
Now, an abbreviated second-hand account of what has become such a complicated situation obviously does not allow for a conclusive determination of guilt or innocence to be made. However, what does come to mind from this particular example is the necessity of verifiable witnesses/evidence and definitive particular laws in order to quickly and easily resolve a given dilemma. Lacking that basic foundation, there is subsequently no universal accountability and the ability of a governing body to fairly and uniformly apply its principles is largely reduced.
Even though we talked about this in class, it's still pertinent to touch on the idea of whether technical proficiency is really useful in the real world, especially situations like this. I'd like to put forth that it is necessary for at least the reason that "the other side" will use it whether you do or not.
In this situation, both the plaintiff and the defendent used arguments that applied technical proficiency to make their points. In this case it seems to have concluded as a stalemate, but I think if either side had not applied their rhetorical strategies, it would have become somewhat one-sided. Landis' defense was able to cause doubt in the UCI's arguments, and while it may not have done anything for the Greater Good, the concept is still the same. It's the same reason why lawyers represent their clients instead of letting the common man defend himself in court. Not every decision made is a good one, but I think everyone deserves a rhetorically proficient defender.
Aristotle says Rhetoric falls into three divisions: speaker, subject, and person addressed. In this case, Landis has to speak on his own behalf to defend himself, acting as the speaker and subject. Landis' credibility is called into question with each audience he must try to convince of his innocence. In reference to accusation and defense, the nature of the wrongdoing was doping, the state of mind of Landis is unknown, and kind of persons wronged were Landis' competitors. Was it vice, lack of self control, or a mistake that brought these charges against Landis?