"Dignity does not consist in possessing honours, but in deserving them". - Aristotle
Hey all,
I thought this quote was apropos to tonight's subject matter - the recent decision of Lance Armstrong to appear on Oprah Winfrey's show and discuss what one can only assume the recent demise of his career and legacy. Why Oprah? Well, I'm guessing he will receive slightly less pressure and be able to dictate the interview more than say, Bill O'Reilly. And if he decides to confess, he will most likely be whole-heartedly forgiven by someone considered by many to be the first Woman in talk shows.
To me, and quite a few others, this looks to be rather staged and strategic as opposed to contrite and real. And its disappointing because the truth will once again be convoluted and constructed, not simply stated as it really is. I hope that those who intend on watching, as I will not be one of them, don't think you will be getting an honest and heartfelt anything from Armstrong. Let me explain why -
If he confesses, he wouldn't dare do it without a few aces up his sleeve. And he needs them now more than ever. A confession cannot come without some guarantees. First, he would need a promise from the federal government that he would not face any charges of perjury, or charges of falsely inducing the United States Postal Service in sponsoring a team with government funds. Those funds by the way, were our tax dollars. So, he needs the promise of no jail time, plus a lessened financial penalty for coming clean.
Second, he would need to know that the USADA would give him a lessened sentence than his current lifetime ban, b/c he wants to, wait for it - compete in Triathlons at the pro level again. He's hinted at being able to sustain his fitness level at an advanced rate so he would be ready to race as a pro again in 18 months. From lifetime ban to 18 months, with some time already served. And people say I'm cynical about the USADA. They have a policy that allows for lesser sentences for athletes who confess, even after conviction. So even with all of their bluster and bravado about finally nailing Armstrong, they would gladly accept his confession and apology, then give him his pro card back and all will be forgiven. The utter hypocrisy in this is astounding. But he wouldn't even consider confessing without these things in place.
Third, although people from Oprah's show have indicated the will have no say in the interview as to questions, he definitely has had enough time to prep, and let's be honest, this isn't going to be some tough grilling. Its not like the late Tim Russert, or Mike Wallace, or Tom Brokaw is doing the interview. This is basically a layup for Armstrong, who has had a very good relationship with Oprah for over a decade. Theatrics aside, this is going to be a rather easy one for the Texan. He'd likely get a tougher fight from Regis. Ergo- that's Latin, he picked Oprah for a reason. And why wouldn't Oprah want this? If he confesses, she's maintained her grip as the most important woman in television. Its her Frost/Nixon moment.
Personally, I don't know what he's going to do. He doesn't need to go on Oprah to maintain his stance of not taking performance enhancing drugs, although he might want that big of a stage to keep that image going. He's not going to confess without the above in place, that much is certain. But if he comes clean, I know it wasn't b/c he had a heavy heart and felt genuinely awful about what he did, and who it affected. Who it really affected. Those who are fighting cancer and looked to him as a hero. He's doing it for selfish reasons. That's the saddest part of all. Below is the most recent piece on this subject from a Washington Post editor and someone who was a huge Armstrong supporter for over 8 years. For me, the whole ordeal has left me saddened, but still hopeful that the most beautiful sport in the world will continue on, recover from this, and thrive.
WASHINGTON, Jan 12, 2013 (AFP) – The cyclist Lance Armstrong could lose
much more than his already ravaged reputation if he confesses to doping this
week during a television interview with Oprah Winfrey — he could end up in
jail.
The disgraced Texan’s decision to talk to the famed US talk show host has
divided opinion, as some say he needs to do something radical to rehabilitate
his public profile, while others say speaking out will only make matters once.
The crux of the matter is whether Armstrong, having been stripped of his
seven Tour de France titles, will finally admit that he was a drugs cheat.
Such a confession would overturn more than a decade of strenuous denials.
“If I were his lawyer, I’d be telling him not to do it. I think he’s
crazy,” said Peter Keane, law professor at Golden Gate University in San
Francisco, of the cyclist’s decision to give the interview, which will be
aired Thursday.
“He’s in considerable jeopardy of some sort of criminal prosecution… for
which he could go to prison,” Keane said.
The threats to Armstrong’s liberty stem from the fallen icon’s role in the
US Postal Service team, where he spent his most successful years in the saddle.
Having been paid by the government, the former team leader could face
criminal charges for making fraudulent statements to his bosses.
He could also be accused of perjury over disclosures made under oath to a
US federal jury in 2005. If convicted, each false statement could lead to five
years in jail.
Armstrong has always maintained that he did not use banned substances
during his stellar career, but in August last year he chose not to contest
charges put forward by the US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) that he was a serial
drugs cheat.
The pitfalls of speaking to Winfrey, considered the favored TV forum for
“tell all” confessional style interviews, appear to have been weighed, and a
decision taken that it is worthwhile to reveal something new.
“I’m anticipating a major announcement,” said Jordan Kobritz, chair of the
State University of New York at Cortland’s International Sport Management
graduate program, noting that Armstrong would otherwise have no reason to talk.
“You don’t have to go on Oprah to do what he’s been doing in his entire
athletic life, and that is deny, deny and deny that he ever engaged in illegal
drugs,” Kobritz said, agreeing with Keane that perjury and criminal charges
are possible.
One possibility is that justice officials in California will re-open a file
they closed last year concerning alleged drug use and misuse of funds when
Armstrong was with the US Postal Service team.
Another case that could come back to haunt the cyclist is an arbitration
hearing in Dallas in 2005 where he said under oath that he had never taken
banned substances, a statement which raises the specter of perjury charges.
But Armstrong’s profile, albeit diminished, as a cancer survivor who raised
awareness and hundreds of millions of dollars to fight the disease, is likely
the chip that could spare him the worst possible outcome.
“Regardless of whether he comes out and makes a flat admission, I guarantee
there will still be a majority of US citizens who will say ‘I don’t care what
he did, he’s still my hero,’” Kobritz said, citing Armstrong’s cancer survival.
“Unless there’s a prosecutor who wants to stake his reputation and his
future political career,” on putting Armstrong in the dock, “I suspect they’re
going to leave him alone,” Kobritz added.
But Michael McCann, director of the sports law institute at Vermont Law
School, said there could be an upside to speaking out, if not immediately then
in the mid-term, even if that means going to jail beforehand for perjury.
“It wouldn’t be five years, but it could be six months, any amount of time
would be pretty bad,” he said.
But there could be “a sense of coming clean, having a cleaner conscience…
public forgiveness, and relief maybe,” added McCann, who is soon to head up a
new sports and entertainment law institute at the University of New Hampshire
