Lance Armstrong Deserves No Credit for Coming Clean
Sometime this week, Oprah Winfrey will interview Lance Armstrong and he is expected to guardedly admit that he used performance enhancing drugs during his tenure of winning 7 Tour de France titles. This confession will contradict his denials over the past decade to the contrary.
Author’s Perspective: Lance Armstrong has a team of advisors, publicists & lawyers who, for the past month, have been debating about whether or not Lance should come clean about using performance enhancing drugs (a.k.a. cheating). That’s all I need to hear. When someone needs to weigh their options and understand the consequences of being honest, they lose all credibility with me. This is called situational ethics, and in my opinion, the truth should not depend on the circumstances. It should not be calculated and weighed by a group of advisors.
When Armstrong is crying (something his advisors are probably debating right now) to Oprah this week about how he couldn’t deal with the guilt, I will not be watching or listening because I know that he is a phony. Lance Armstrong’s decision to come clean was a calculated decision made in the best interest of Lance Armstrong.
Moral of the Story: Do the right thing, play by the rules and be honest. If and when you screw up, admit it and move on. If Armstrong had lived by this code, he would not be in this situation. He might have still won a Tour de France or two or he would have finished runner up several times. He would have been known as the guy who overcame cancer and gave it everything he had. His reputation would have been intact. Now, he is simply known as a cheater and a fraud.
1) Do you think I am being too harsh on Lance? What is your response to his “coming clean?”
2) It is tempting to lie or cheat in order to gain favor, finances or fame. Do you think it is worth it to do so? Have you ever done so (I have)?
3) Would you rather have a solid reputation based on character or fame based on false pretenses?