Dilemma for a fallen idol
No great surprise, but the first big cycling story of the new year was not about a present cyclist or even a bicycle race. Far from it, the tone was set by one of the best-informed Lance Armstrong reporters in the business, in The New York Times, and her chosen subject was his possible forthcoming confession.
In two weeks’ time, the new season of professional cycling will commence when the Tour Down Under rolls over the start line in Adelaide, but it is the fate of those riders, and those in almost every peloton around the world, that whatever the value of their achievements, Armstrong wields a fascination that still trumps them.
As the fallen Texan plots his next move, he will know that, although his brand remains busted and forever tainted, he is such a magnet of international gaze that there has to be some value in the charred remains of his infamous achievements. He has spent recent weeks in Hawaii, and the new year surely heralds a return to the mainland and to the heart of his story. The idea that he has simply buried his head in the sand retains no credibility; the strange silence hides only an elongated process while he has been assessing his options and figuring out which is the best for his survival.
The arguments for and against are, on the face of it, clear. If he maintains his innocence, then he has a better chance of protecting his fortune. It has been estimated by Forbes magazine that, over the next 10 years, his loss of earnings will be about US$150 million (NZ$184m).
He is also already facing expensive legal battles. The Sunday Times is among them, seeking to recoup about about £1 million (NZ$1.95 million) for the return of damages and legal costs after he sued for defamation in 2004, when the newspaper accused him of doping.
A confession makes his wealth comparatively easy pickings. What happens to prize money won and endorsements earned if he acknowledges they were illegally gained?
The alternative is to confess, as he is reportedly considering, which gives him at last the opportunity to edit his own story. His only comment of late was this tweet, five days ago, from Hawaii: ‘‘It took a photographer to ‘write’ the most balanced piece we’ve seen yet.’’ The blog he linked his tweet to argues thus: ‘‘Lance did what he had to do to win, and he clearly did it very well. If he cheated, he cheated the other cheats of that era, even if by doing so he also cheated an adoring public.’’ That sounds as though he is straying towards a confession.
The hard bit to credit is that it has been reported that he is considering this course of action because he wants to race again in competitive triathlons. He is at present serving a life ban; at best, a confession might get that reduced to four years. Is the financial penalty of coming clean worth it to contest seniors’ events when he is 45?
While Armstrong remains out in the cold, the Livestrong foundation – from which he has had to cut all official ties – remains fatally wounded and thus directors of the charity have reportedly beseeched him to make a confession. They believe that would give Livestrong an opportunity to move on.
Armstrong has long been the self-proclaimed poster boy of the fight against cancer. The insinuation is that he will be required to make a considerable personal sacrifice if that is to remain the case. Because, of course, with a confession, the ultimate sanction is a possible prison sentence.
What will be his value when it’s all over? Here is an answer of sorts, that comes from Betsy Andreu in the Daily News of New York. Andreu, the wife of his former team-mate, Frankie, who refused to lie for Armstrong, once testified in court against Armstrong and he publicly vilified her thereafter. ‘‘Does he think people are completely stupid?’’ she is quoted as saying.
‘‘Will he apologise to the people who wouldn’t lie for him? Will he compensate people for costing them jobs and businesses? How do you put a price on lost opportunities?’’
It is all now about the price.