( CNN ) -- We have many heroes : historic figures who battled for freedom , a man who jumps on the railway tracks to save someone from certain death , a whistle-blower who identifies corruption in government or industry . While these forms of heroism focus on a willingness to take risks in the service of other people or noble ideals , the most ancient notion of heroism focuses on humanity 's ability to transcend its own physical limitations . Occasionally , there is a man or woman who appears to be almost superhuman in strength and physical ability . The Greeks had Achilles and Athena . Up until yesterday , we had Lance Armstrong . It is unlikely that we will ever know the truth about Lance Armstrong 's situation -- was it truly a heroic journey , battling his own body 's limits to demonstrate the pinnacle of human capability -- despite the intense personal costs of competing in the Tour de France ? Or was it a tainted attempt to win glory ? And why ca n't it ever be simple -- why ca n't we have a hero who is beyond reproach ? Cyclists say 'good riddance ' As a researcher who focuses on heroic action and the ascription of heroic status , I know that heroism is rarely simple . In fact , in a paper that I authored with my colleagues Kathy Blau and Dr. Philip Zimbardo , we argued that heroism is fundamentally paradoxical . First , the action of heroism is typically an intensely private and personal endeavor , even when these actions are taken under the glaring spotlight of the media ; but the ascription of heroic status is a fundamentally public activity -- the personal actions taken by one individual are observed and interpreted by others , rightly or wrongly . If we consider the possibility that Armstrong 's 500-plus drug tests were negative as an indicator that he never doped , this is an incredible testament not just to his physical strength , but his moral fortitude . If this is the case , he was able to resist an ongoing temptation that occurred in private , after all the cameras where off and the fans had gone home . This brings us to our second paradox . It is human nature to at once hunger for and elevate exemplars of heroism , while we simultaneously often want to negate the actual actions of a real hero . One of the implications of our research is that all forms of heroism result in some level of controversy ; seeing someone run into a burning building to save another may look heroic to one bystander but foolish to another . Lance Armstrong faces lifetime ban . A lot rides on the outcome . If a woman who goes into a building is successful in rescuing the trapped victim in the inferno , she is a hero . But if she fails , or she is injured , the risk she took is seen as having been too great , even though the actual risk calculus she took in the moment of action does not change . Moreover , someone willing to act heroically fundamentally challenges our own notions of ourselves . Heroes are , in some ways , subtly dangerous to our sense of social order . Even though they are human , just like the rest of us , their actions are outside of the normal human experience . If there is a whistleblower in our office -- even if his or her motives are noble -- it is human nature to search for an alternative explanation . Maybe this person was really disgruntled at the boss . With Lance Armstrong , there is a natural tendency , perhaps in all of us , to say , `` See , I told you so , no one could be that good . '' The sad part of Armstrong 's story -- of the titles being stripped away -- is that we lose either way . If he did dope , it is just another example in a recent string of high-profile heroic failures . Joe Paterno 's career , built up over many years of good decisions , was washed away by an incident he should have acted on . The captain of the Costa Concordia 's momentary lapse led to the deaths of 32 people ; abandoning ship before his passengers led to his disgrace . But if Armstrong did n't dope , it wo n't matter . The news cycles will have already done their work . There is doubt now , and that is often the beginning of the end of our willingness to attach the word `` hero '' to someone in our own minds . We have lost a figure who was willing to challenge the limits of human performance , to show us what we are truly capable of if we put everything we have into accomplishing a seemingly insurmountable goal . Armstrong 's story of setbacks and triumphs brought us closer to the essence of the human endeavor . What 's behind the Armstrong headlines ? While it is easy to say that one slip-up means someone ca n't be hero , it is also important for us to remember that negating all of this person 's actions over a few mistakes also lets us off the hook . No hero is without flaws . None of us is . But if we allow ourselves the luxury of saying , `` See , he 's just like the rest of us , '' we no longer have to challenge ourselves to perform at the limits of our own personal capability . The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Zeno Franco .
Zeno Franco : Sometimes we pick heroes who , like Armstrong , transcend physical limitations . But heroism a paradox : It 's private , but it acquires the heroic label as a public activity , he says . The other thing is that there are many people in this world with disabilities and they're not all disabled because of their disability ; some have been born without arms or legs for example. Franco : If we revel in Armstrong 's fall as equalizing , we let ourselves off the hook for heroism .