Henry Blodget Unerringly Pegged Lance Armstrong — in a Piece Published by Business Insider — and a Question about Redemption

06 January 2013

Lance Armstrong appears to be continuing his love affair with himself and his twisted moral code

The New York Times revealed Friday that 7-time Tour de France winner (now stripped of his titles) is allegedly considering confession, so as to regain his right to compete.

Citation — to New York Times article

Juliet Macur, In Reversal, Armstrong Is Said to Weigh Admitting Drug Use, New York Times (04 January 2013)

Odd

Even as a former litigating attorney, Armstrong’s strategy (if it be one) struck me as odd.

In addition to forewarning numerous past and potential plaintiffs (thereby making subsequent legal work that much more difficult and expensive), Armstrong’s implied scheme seems to be saying, “What’ll y’all give me, if I come clean?”

Henry Blodget’s perspective

Henry Blodget, writing for Business Insider, had a similar reaction:

If Lance Armstrong wants to start righting wrongs--and if he wants people to believe that he's righting them because he actually cares about righting them--Armstrong might want to focus on those things first and worry about "competing" later.

In other words, Armstrong might want to start with one simple concept:

Telling the truth.

Telling the truth not because doing so will allow Lance Armstrong "to compete again" or serve some other goal that is all about Lance Armstrong, but because telling the truth is just the right thing to do.

And then, once he tells the truth, completely and humbly, Lance Armstrong could begin to apologize to all of the people he attacked, lied about, and tried to destroy over the years.

Then he might write a book in which he tells his full story, honestly, and gives the proceeds to his charity.

Then he might devote his amazing work ethic, discipline, and ability to inspire people to telling this story all over the world--with the same inspiring commitment that he demonstrated when he was still the king of the world.

And then, after that, perhaps, if he still wants to, Lance Armstrong can go to the world anti-doping agencies and ask them if they might consider letting him compete in organized sports again.

Because if he puts the last goal first, which he already appears to be doing, everyone looking in from the outside will be forced to conclude what they have already been forced to conclude over the past several years:

That there's only one thing that Lance Armstrong cares about--and that's Lance Armstrong.

The athletically admirable, but morally repugnant Mr. Armstrong

I have written about Lance Armstrong before:

here (examining the Anti-Doping Agency’s announcement that it was moving against him)

here (castigating Armstrong and his lawyers for blatantly misusing the American judicial system)

here (delineating and commenting on the case the USADA brought against him)

The only thing that ever bugged me about Lance Armstrong — was the way he treated people

The gist of my upset with Armstrong was not his doping, which was expected in cycling at that time.

I was saddened by the ethically indefensible ways that he treated former teammates, fellow cyclists, and other truth-tellers, during his long conspiracy to elevate himself to cycling’s top spot.

The moral? — Lance Armstrong is both athletic saint/philanthropist and a moral rat

His sad example re-asks the question:

How should we shape redemption — and Whom does it come from?

PeteFree.com

Henry Blodget Unerringly Pegged Lance Armstrong — in a Piece Published by Business Insider — and a Question about Redemption