Was Lance Armstrong’s confession on Oprah that he took
performance-enhancing drugs, right or wrong?
The big media news story of the last few weeks has been
about Lance Armstrong the seven times Tour de France winner confessing to Oprah
Winfrey (the agony aunt of America) that for years he took performance
enhancing drugs. Armstrong also admits that he could never have won his seven
tour de France titles without the drugs, and that he had been lying to many
people for the last ten plus years. He acknowledges that he has put his friends
and loved ones through much pain and torture.
Armstrong says that at the time he did not feel like he was
cheating and that it appeared to him to be a “level playing field” because
everyone else was doing it. I find this argument weak at best and morally
corrupt at worse. This argument is what I have (unfortunately) come to expect
from a naive teenager who justify their sexual promiscuity with the statement
“everyone’s doing it” and not from a 41 yr old world class, multi millionaire
athlete, father and husband.
However what I find somewhat grating is the moral hypocrisy
from those in the media towards Armstrong’s confession. Some put forth various
views that cast suspicion upon the authenticity of his confession. Some say he
wants to compete again in triathlons, maybe even cycling. Whilst others say his
confession is only because he was caught and that his decision to confess on
Oprah was because she would give him an easy ride (no pun intended). Firstly at
the age of 41 and having been out of any real competitive sport for the last 5
years I don’t think it is possible for Lance Armstrong to compete at any real
serious level (unless he uses performance enhancing drugs, sorry couldn’t
resist that one). Secondly was he actually really caught? Armstrong went on
record to say that he had been tested more than any other cyclist in history
and never tested positive. The only evidence against him came from former team
mates who themselves confessed to taking drugs (and therefore implicating
Armstrong) in return for light (6 months) punishment. I always find these
scenarios akin to liars accusing other people of lying (how do you believe
them). Thirdly I don’t buy the idea that confessing on Oprah was an easy
option, I mean wouldn’t you rather confess to a priest / pastor in a small
booth / office than on one of the biggest talks shows in media? I mean can you
confess to any bigger audience in the world than Oprah’s? I think I am right in
saying more people watch Oprah than the Tour De France? Whilst I accept that
Oprah may be a more genial person to confess to (though her first question went
for the jugular), surely human nature would rather confess to a friendly rather
than fierce person?
I actually want to commend Lance Armstrong for his confession, on such a very public platform, (maybe others will be inspired to
do the same?). This could not have been an easy decision. Apart from the fact
he must of known he was going to be castigated by many, he has also opened
himself up to numerous litigation cases being filed against him (already to the
tune of £10m and rising). Many in his position would of kept up the pretence of
the past ten years and taken their lies with them to their grave, leaving many
in the public sphere still unsure of his guilt or innocence. No I think his
confession was a very difficult decision to come to and will haunt him
emotionally and financially for the rest of his life.
Yes he could have and should have confessed a lot earlier,
but are we now saying that there comes a time when it is too late to confess?
Ask the loved ones of those who have been murdered who have begged the killer
to confess the whereabouts of their victim’s body for years. (Ask the relatives
of the victims of the Moors murderers Ian Brady and Myra Hindley). Many in
history have chosen in their dying moments that their ‘last words’ be a
confession of a previous wrong. At least Armstrong did not wait that long
(though I accept there maybe more to confess). Above all else I believe
Armstrong proves that adage to be true and that is “confession is good for the
soul”.
One of Jesus disciples wrote in 1 John 1:8-10 (NLT) 8 If we claim we have no sin, we are
only fooling ourselves and not living in the truth. 9 But if we confess
our sins to him, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse
us from all wickedness. 10 If we claim we have not sinned, we are calling
God a liar and showing that his word has no place in our hearts.
Armstrong still has a long way to go to repair the damage he
has done and if truth be told, for some nothing he ever does will be acceptable
penance for his crimes. But here a little perspective is called for; he cheated
in a bike race and made lots of money from it. I can think of many in the
public eye who have fallen from greater heights and managed to redeem
themselves in the public eye. I think of Bill Clinton using his political
leverage to help re elect President Obama. Many feel he has redeemed himself by
his recent years of charitable work. Maybe Armstrong’s great work in fighting
cancer will help him to redemption and ‘livestrong’ at least in the eyes of God.
