Lance Armstrong, in confessing publicly to Oprah in an extended interview, confirmed what many have suspected for years. He is a cheat and a liar.
Worse still, Armstrong is a cheat and a liar who has risen to the top of world sport, accepting and trading upon all of the privileges that came with it. He has, quite literally, deceived his way too the top.
The Texan now stands to lose more than just his sponsorships. He faces a life ban from all sanctioned sporting events, endless court cases, and perhaps even charges of perjury.
Cycling, which barely rates in Australian sports media, is the centre of attention for all the wrong reasons.
Like many others around the country, I tuned into Oprah’s keenly anticipated interview with Armstong and was shocked and angered by his revelations of years of doping.
Watching him speak however, my attitude to the situation softened. It wasn’t as if I believed all that he said, or was gullible enough to think that he was actually ‘coming clean.’ There is no doubt that he is holding on to many secrets, and that his explanations are only part of the story.
Better to view the situation by his actions, not his words. His stand-over tactics to those who accused him of cheating are illustrative of a bully-boy competitor who wanted to “control every outcome.”
Still, what we witnessed was a flawed man trying to explain the impossible. And that makes him human, and worthy of some empathy.
The predictable reaction to the interview among most columnists and fans oscillated between derision and anger. Then there were the usual “I’ll never trust any sportsperson again” hissy-fits. The moralisers were out in force.
Of course, postulating is easy when your a nobody. As Oprah remarked, “fame amplifies the person you really are.” Luckily for us, we’ll never have our indiscretions broadcast to the world.
In Part One of the interview, Armstrong explained that he has always attempted to “control the narrative” of his life.
He’s a self-confessed control freak, with a dangerous streak of “arrogance and defiance.” Armstrong told Oprah that there were only two moments in his life where he wasn’t in control: during his battle with cancer and the interview.
But that was an exaggeration. Armstrong may have lost control of his secret, but in revealing select truths and telling his version of the story, there is still a sense that he is trying to regain control of his own story.
Anyone who has lied, or cheated, or deceived can relate to this process.
Here lies the point. Armstrong is a product of his environment. Not just in his life as an elite cyclist who is expected to perform at the top level, but also as a celebrity.
Many will argue that he coveted fame and fortune and thus deserves to experience the other side of celebrity.
Fair enough. However we should remember that at his core, Armstrong is still a simple man in extraordinary circumstances, like Tiger Woods, or Andrew Johns, or Andre Agassi.
These sportsmen start out as single-minded, tremendously talented athletes, and then we turn them into celebrities and demi-gods.
When they fall, we delight in the bitterness of betrayal and injustice. It’s a chance to reinforce our own moral codes and our own ideological convictions. But there is nothing sadder than frothing over someone else’s mistakes.
The cult of celebrity has been amplified since consumer capitalism commodified all aspects our society, economy and culture. It’s an obsession that started in entertainment, before invading all areas of life, including politics, academia, business and of course, sport.
Sociologists have argued that the celebrity has replaced the cultural role of the religious figurehead, while others refer to them as “the familiar stranger”.
The point is that we invest so much meaning in one individual, and when they fall, we relish the chance to pass judgement. The confessional interview turns into a show-trial, and the situation becomes a pantomime.
At the centre of all this is a man who, you sense, has only made baby steps towards the truth. As fans, it is easy to say we would never cheat, or lie. Indeed the magnitude of Armstrong’s lies are breathtaking.
But it is important to remember that Armstrong didn’t get into the business of lying and cheating as a mature adult with a wife, kids, and a public profile.
He started taking performance enhancing drugs as an ultra-competitive young man, with the implicit support of many of his peers, coaches and teammates.
The original sin, as he himself states, was simply being part of the cycling culture at that time. The dishonesty and rationalisations that followed are a self-perpetuating cycle.
Once you’ve doped and gotten away with it, why stop?
Most of us are lucky enough never to have to face the pressure, expectation and fallout that celebrity athletes do. When we cheat, lie and steal, we only have to face our peers and the people that matter in our small world.
Lance Armstrong deserves severe criticism. His lies went beyond cycling, and his actions should haunt him for the rest of his life. To his credit, he can see that “that guy is still there.”
But “that guy” lies deep inside all of us. Some deeper than others. Some will never let “that guy” see the light of day, to their eternal credit.
David Walsh, the journalist who chased this story for years, is a credit to his profession. Those who didn’t dope and missed out on Tour de France victories as a result can walk a little taller.
Meanwhile, Lance Armstrong, we can all agree, has a lot to answer for. Some would also say that cycling has a lot to answer for. The culture in professional cycling is (or was) clearly toxic.
Still, perhaps there should be more of an effort to understand what drives this kind of behaviour, rather than a witch-hunt.
There will be other Lance Armstrongs. But simply blaming the individual misses the forest for the trees.
Mia
Guest
Lance Armstrong cheated. He gained a professional advantage to win. Since nearly all the riders competing in his time took performance enhancing drugs- you might say he was levelling the playing field....and since they were all on the same crap- he still beat them. Many people close to Armstrong have said daming things, that he was ruthless, nasty, that he sued them over a lie. He tried to protect himself, his income, his family, his reputation. He knew if he told the truth that all of these things would be put in jeopardy. A fairly human trait. We all make mistakes- we have all told a lie at at least once. Mr Armstrong is but a man not a super hero, and is faulted like every man, like you and me. If we continue to place people on pedestals, only to bring them smashing down, because they did not meet up to an impossible standard we will never have true empathy for one another. Lance deserves to be given another chance. Perhaps he may be able to help the cycling world stop cheating, and truly make ammends with those he has hurt.
apaway
Roar Guru
They are apparently entering a team under the name "Immortals Tour" figuring that now the drug cheats are gone, anyone could do it...:)
sheek
Roar Guru
Beardan, This is an opinionated blogsite. Everyone is quite entitled to offer an opinion. On anything. So now we're not allowed to have an opinion because perhaps someone like you who "bought" the "narrative", is now resentful of those who didn't fall for the sham. In any case, the point I made which seems to have upset you so much, is that unlike Lance Armstrong, I am neither greedy nor vain. I have plenty of my own faults, which I acknowledged, but in answering a part of Tom's post, I suggested the reason why people like Armstrong do these things is because of greed & vanity. No-one put a gun to Armstrong's head & told him he "must" take performance enhancing drugs because everyone else is. There are any number of different ways he could've handled the situation, with honour intact. The guy was simply too greedy & too vain.
Steve
Guest
Well this is it, I've removed my personal involvement and decided to go by the testimony of those around him, and by the facts. Not facts like your '500 tests and never found positive once' line, but facts which actually have some basis in reality. You should try it sometime.
Beardan
Roar Guru
suing him if is justified is fine. But as for forfeiting your opinion, its good for you to finally make a bit of sense.
Beardan
Roar Guru
Actually I shot in your direction Sheek, buit you were too fast and talented to strike, just ask yourself. Over the next few days, weeks, months people wont be enjoying seeing someone fall as much as they have with Lance. your second paragraph is perhaps the start of that now you've had a few days to calm down and get over how wonderful you are and how opposite to you Lance is.
sheek
Roar Guru
Beardan, If I was the intended scorn of your bullseye, you have shot very wide of the mark..... And in relation to that quote you're quoting, many people aren't gloating over Armstrong, they're merely relieved he's got his comeuppance. I think you really do miss the point.....
Steve
Guest
Yes Beardan, that actually is a fair point. I'll forfeit my opinion and go with what they think. Does 'suing him' count as judgemental?
dasilva
Guest
The difference between Andrew Johns and Lance armstrong was that there's no evidence that Andrew Johns break the doping code whilst LA did. cocaine is only banned from a sporting context (yes I know it's against the law) during the match. There's no evidence that Johns played a competitive match of rugby under the influence of drugs. He even admitted that he never got caught because he took it after the match. his failing may well break someone's moral code of conduct for people who consider self-harm to be immoral but they did not break sporting conduct and he did not get a competitive advantage over competitors.
dasilva
Guest
It's not ok to take illicit drugs that breaks the law but it is legal via WADA code to take cocaine during the week but go in clean during the match. Stimulants do not aid training (in fact taking stimulant regularly will cause burnout and fatigue more than anything) but they assist performance on the here and now. Johns may be breaking the law taking illicit drugs but he didn't break the doping code (or at least wasn't proven to break the doping code). He wasn't a "drug cheat" getting an unfair advantage over competitors
Beardan
Roar Guru
maybe then Betsy Andreu or Emma O'Reilly or Christophe Bassons have a right to comment then. More so than all of the judgmental overnight psychology experts who suddenly know what a 'sociopathic fraud' is.
Steve
Guest
If you think Sheek stating that he isn't a relentless philanderer or sociopathic fraud is evidence of him bragging about how wonderful he is, you might like to think about what constitutes normal behaviour in your book. I'm pretty O.K with people being a little judgmental on Armstrong. Tell you what, you walk a mile in Betsy Andreu or Emma O'Reilly or Christophe Bassons shoes, and then we'll see how you feel about it.
Steve
Guest
Spot on Oikee. Also, Johns didn't set himself up as Mr. Anti-partying, hound journalists, betray friends, ruin careers, force others to take drugs, threaten women at home, abuse a charity to keep his profile up and provide leverage for personally enriching business deals, use nationalism to denigrate people who told the truth about him, bribe officials, start a personality cult with himself as the golden idol, post a picture up on twitter with a bowl of pills after the truth came out saying 'screw you journos: everything you say about me is lies' and WORST OF ALL make grown men have to sit through Oprah. I would say any forgiveness for Armstrong should wait until he no longer believes he is merely being victimized for his greatness, and he shows at least the tiniest degree of contrition. I think Andrew Johns and Wally Lewis will win the Tour De France on a tandem before that happens though.
Daniel Szabo
Roar Guru
Firstly, at the time Joey was caught with pills in London, he had already confessed his drug use in his (at the time) yet to be released biography. When he got busted he still didn't "have to" reveal all on the Footy Show. He easily could've spun together a story about how he was holding it for someone, or how it was a one time thing, but he didn't. He simply figured that it was all going to come out soon in his biography, he might as well get it out of the way now. Secondly, Joey didn't cheat anyone but himself, and arguably his team. I don't believe Joey would ever have played under the influence of ecstasy (note that there's a massive difference between playing under the influence of ecstasy, and playing with ecstasy in your system). It would've been so obvious if he did; he would've played like absolute sh!t.
Beardan
Roar Guru
This is the best quote ive read this week: 'But there is nothing sadder than frothing over someone else’s mistakes'. Finally someone writing about this not wanting to kick a bloke whilst he is down. Wanting to see him face the consequences for his extremely poor actions without wanting to see him fall on his knees whilst all those who are perfect start throwing stones at him.
Beardan
Roar Guru
You are kidding Sheek. You have listed how wonderful you are, and by doing so have not displayed any modesty at all. In your mind you are a better person than these two, but have forgotten that a lack of empathy and by being full of criticism for these two you are also showing traits of your personality. You havent walked in their shoes, maybe being less judgmental and spend your spare time re-reading this excellent article wouldnt hurt you.
Daniel Szabo
Roar Guru
Rugby league immortality is decided by what players did on the field. Off-field has nothing to do with it. I don't care if Joey (or any of the other immortals for that matter) took ecstasy. I don't care if he took anything. Whether he took it during the season, before or after the season doesn't matter. As long as he didn't take anything on game day (and he obviously didn't, or else he wouldn't have been such a great player), and if it's not performance enhancing (ecstasy is not performance enhancing), I really don't care. Believe it or not, Andrew Johns is not the only young Australian male to have tried and used recreational drugs. I wouldn't be surprised if one or even several of the other immortals had used ecstasy. Being part of rugby league, they all would've had countless wild nights on the drink. What's not to say that ecstasy or other drugs weren't involved?
sheek
Roar Guru
Thanks Jiggles.
Jiggles
Roar Guru
I rarely agree with you Sheek but I do here. Drug taking is prolific in sport so I don't think anyone can take issue with this aspect of the story compared to what other athletes have done. What people can take issue with is the lengths he went to in order to protect the myth. Armstrong is no better than any other crook, criminal or con-man who will go to any length to protect his wealth. He's a pure psychopath.
sheek
Roar Guru
Joe, Lance Armstrong is no person inside me. I'm not greedy & I'm not vain. Yes, I can tell fibs just like the next person, but I try to live a decent life, I love my wife & daughter, I do my best to look after my family & relations, & I hope my friends value my friendship as someone who's there in the tough times. I treat everyone with courtesy (unless they are discourteous first) & if I had a business I wouldn't rip people off. I believe in the philosophy that your integrity & character lasts long after you're dead. I have my faults but ripping people off or manipulating them isn't among my faults. I have nothing in common with Lance Armstrong. There is no "little" Armstrong within me. However, I can relate to Tiger Woods succession of "bar girls" had I been young & single. Emphasis on young & single. Woods was still relatively young, but he wasn't single. So in that respect there's no "little" Woods within me. These guys were greedy, they couldn't get enough of worldly possessions. And they were vain, their egos had gone totally out of control. It was about them & satisfying their desires at the expense of others. A lot of people lead decent, honest, clean lives. They aren't greedy & they aren't vain.