, , , , , , , , ,


English: Cyclist Lance Armstrong at the 2008 T...

Although I am not interested in cycling, or particularly bothered about doping allegations, I was fascinated by Lance Armstrong’s recent statement, regarding his decision to stop fighting to clear his name. 

If Lance had bothered to Google himself, he may have come across this article


where the author dissects an interview Armstrong gave in 2005 and points to particular comments and body language which he believes indicate that Armstrong was lying about his drug use at that time.  Instead, in his recent statement Armstrong seems to be repeating the same mistakes he made in 2005.  Silly Lance!  Disregarding his decision to walk away from the controversy when the going got tough, his language and phrases alone read like a ‘How Not To Lie’ lesson.  Not once does he actually claim he did not take performance enhancing drugs.  Instead he gives vague statements aimed for us to question why anyone could possibly accuse him in the first place.  He states that he has never failed a drugs test, has always made himself available to take them and asks “What is the point of all this testing if, in the end, USADA will not stand by it?”

But most of all he continually states that the whole business is unfair, one-sided, full of “heinous claims”, “punishing me at all costs”. He claims to have been part of a “witch hunt”, a “charade” concocted by the USADA and a target for bullying and threatening tactics.  This kind of language serves to enhance his status as an innocent victim.  From now on he will “no longer address this issue, regardless of the circumstances”  Isn’t this the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears, shouting “it’s not fair” and running away?  Or is it me being unfair?