Beginning Thursday, the world gets to hear what disgraced cyclist Lance Armstrong has to say to Oprah Winfrey about having been found to cheat his way to the top of his sport — after repeatedly denying pointed accusations that he’d been illegally blood-doping.
For the millions expected to watch the two-part interview, taped earlier this week, any sympathy harbored toward Armstrong as a world-class athlete and cancer survivor may be overshadowed by one nagging question: How can someone live with such a lie? And for such a long period of time, knowing he might be exposed someday?
Comments
There is no way I accept the professors claim that "most of us lie daily". I'm not niave and I understand people lie, but not to that extent the professor asserts and to suggest Armstrong's dispicable behavior is common is to diminish the seriousnous of the situation. I also don't see Clinton protecting himself or his family on a PRIVATE matter being even remotely similar to someone who intentionally cheated over many years within a public program and discredited sources and friends to further protect himself.
But we do (most of us) lie in small ways every day. I think that was the author's point. Think about everything you say and do (the comment above that the dress looks great on you is telling; or take, for example, one's typical reply to 'how are you?' - it's 'fine, and you?' even though we may feel rotten, be deeply worried, and, in general, not at all 'fine'. The author is not asserting we use big lies daily, and some of lies can be beneficial, as other comments have noted.
There will be many posting here today who attempt to take the moral high ground by proclaiming their moral indigmation at the acts of various athletes or politician, but they will only be lying to us and themselves. If pressed they who be forced to acknowledge and forgive lies told by athletes they like and politicians they support, all the while lying to themselves, and us, about that moral inconsistency.
From cheating on our diets to stealing from investors people, each and every one of us lie about something, every day, and not all lies are damaging (The dress looks great on you!), but they are stiil lies.
We all have different thresholds for what we can lie about, but none are innocent, and, in the end, the only valid measure can only be: Who was hurt?
Maybe another measure: Did he/she try to do the right thing?
We don't all make a living on our lies. When a poolitician lies about the past, he is usually called on it. When he fails to make good on a promise, his opponents call him a liar and his supporters give him the benefit of the doubt.
Armstrong lied about the past.
And, about the dress you're wearing, if my lie brings a smile to your face, it is an act of charity, not a lie.
He lied for how long? He can ask for forgiveness and then go crawl into a hole with other frauds, cheats, and liars. Of course, we let Martha back into the public spotlight because we are a culture without shame, especially when it comes to white collar crime. I expect he'll make a bloody fortune on is lies. But he will never be anyone's hero. No integrity.
While we still can, and must, measure the character of others, we can only do so tempered by the reality of our own failings. My one constant judge of character is who you've hurt, and how deeply, not if you've ever lied about anything or not.
One can even argue that in this, and many other instances, the purported 'truth' was more harmful than the fiction ever was, since the take-home message for the young is now "cheat to win, just don't get caught" as opposed to "with will and determination you can overcome anything, even cancer".
While I'm shocked to hear myself say it, at least in the realm of sports, the "feet of clay" school of reporting does nothing to elevate our society, since the constant tearing down of all the idols leaves armchair jocks feeling better about their own short-comings, but leaves nothing worthy of emulation. (Please Cal Ripken don't disappoint me!)
Sports are entertainment. "Enhanced" athletes are more entertaining (read: higher ratings). Why do we not allow our modern day gladiators to take performance enhancing drugs if that's what they all do to win? This purist ethic is hypocritical given the nasty business of big money sports. Lance did what he unfortunately had to do, if the stuff wasn't unsanctioned, it wouldn't be an issue. I wouldn't do the stuff, but I'm not trying to win races.
The headline in today's paper for this article is "Lying is just another part of life." Honestly, at first glance, I thought this article was about Mitt Romney.
It is hereby stipulated: All politicians lie. Please confine further discussion to the principles,
Lance was a cheat and went out of his way to try and destroy others who told the truth. He is a total snake.
Replace the name of Armstrong with Obama.When you replace Christian beliefs with Government practices that declare the latter as a god, the program for lying is only one of the results for the beginning of a collapse of a civilization. Take a good look at the collapse of the Roman Empire...
Bizarre.
All of the top 20 finishers in the Tour de France were doping. It's rampant in the sport. There was no way to win and NOT dope, it's what you had to do to play in this arena. I don't find his behavior despicable, I find it unfortunate. Lance Armstrong remains an amazing athlete, and all the good work he's done for cancer should not be discredited.
GREAT article. EVERYONE is lying and cheating and doing whatever they can to get ahead of the next guy. The result of an immoral society. It will only get worse and worse and become such commonplace that our grandkids will know 'the ropes' and morality is not even in the equation anymore.
And when was the 'golden age' of morality you imagine? Your childhood? The Civil War? The Renaissance? Ancient Rome? The early Pleistocene? Humankind's relationships to each other overall are not deteriorating, and by most measures are better today than they have ever been. The environment is another story...