Skip to comments.Lance Armstrong and the Sociopath’s Dilemma: When Honesty Is No Longer Ethical (Clinton)
Posted on 01/15/2013 9:37:37 AM PST by doug from upland
Lance Armstrong and the Sociopaths Dilemma: When Honesty Is No Longer Ethical
Welcome to the club, Lance.
In 2004, 15 years after he had been banned from baseball after a finding by the Major League Baseballs Commissioners Office that he had violated the games rules against betting on Major League Games, Pete Rose publicly admitted that his denials over that time were all lies. Yes, he had bet on baseball, and he was very, very sorry. Roses admission did little to change the verdict in and out of baseball that he was a rogue and a liar. His confession was obviously part of a cynical and calculated strategy to get reinstated in the game, after the strategy of denial and waiting proved ineffective. In addition, Rose needed money, and the confession was part of the hook for his new autobiographical book, which was released at the same time he withdrew his protestations of innocence.
For Pete Rose, honesty was not an ethical value that he respected or returned to in penance after years of straying. It was just another means to an end.
In 1998, President Bill Clinton was in the midst of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, denying that he had ever had sex with that woman. He called up his old friend, advisor and pollster, Dick Morris, and asked what he should do. Together they decided that Morris ought to take a poll to see what the publics reaction would be if Clinton retracted his denials and admitted the affair. Morris reported back, after taking such a poll, that while the public would forgive the sexual relationship, anger over the Presidents untruthful denials might sink his administration. Clinton decided that honesty would not work to his advantage, and continued to lie.
To Bill Clinton and Morris, honesty was just one of several tactical options to solve a political crisis. If had nothing to do with ethics, or doing the right thing.
It is 2013, and the New York Times reports that Lance Armstrong, now stripped of all his cycling titles, banned from athletic competition worldwide and separated from his commercial sponsors and the cancer charity that bears his name,
has told associates and antidoping officials that he is considering publicly admitting that he used banned performance-enhancing drugs and blood transfusions during his cycling career, according to several people with direct knowledge of the situation. He would do this, the people said, because he wants to persuade antidoping officials to restore his eligibility so he can resume his athletic career.
Armstrong, it is clear, is traveling in the well-worn and slimy footsteps of Rose and Clinton, fellow sociopaths to whom conscience, shame, contrition and remorse are alien concepts and for whom atonement and redemption are just games to win, with honesty being an indispensable, if unpleasant, tactic. When one is considering whether or not to be honest and admit what one has long denied based on cold calculations of personal costs and benefits, truth-telling is no longer a matter of ethics, or doing the right thing regardless of consequences. It is merely another weapon, along with lies, manipulation, deceit and posturing, in the arsenal of one of the lifetime predators whose sole goal in life is to prevail and profit over the rest of the trusting suckers who share the Earth with them, and who will do anything, even to the extent of briefly embracing ethical principles, to get what they want.
Should he decide to finally admit what everyone knows and he has long denied, even to the extent of suing those who declared his guilty, Lance Armstrong should be seen as no more ethical or noble than the criminal who pleads guilty in court on the advice of his lawyer, because the evidence is overwhelming, conviction is certain, and confession is the only route to a lighter sentence.
Individuals like Pete Rose, Bill Clinton and Lance Armstrong defile ethical values by their brief embrace of them.
Of course, both Clinton and Armstrong were defended by scumbag attorney Mark Fabiani.
Lance Armstrong is a good example of why no one should ascribe hero status to a sports figure.
We now hear Lance wants to start to improve his image by becoming a snitch.
Power, Money, Influence/Prestige, Celebrity...
There isn’t much difference these days between politicians, Hollywood types and sport hereos...
Lie, cheat, steal, and kill...and yet the unwashed masses worship them and constantly reward their bad behaviour.
As always, stay safe!
The lie is the weapon used most often by the criminal.
Add Stephen Glass to this list.
That's the rub, isn't it? Are there any "clean" cyclists out there, or is it just a matter of who can avoid detection? And it's not really limited to cycling, either -- PEDs and doping are rampant in almost every sport. At what point is "cheating" just a means of keeping up with everyone else?
Armstrong is a militant atheist who blamed God for his cancer and didn’t give Him credit when he was cured.
As far as I know Pete Rose never bet against his own team , and never threw a game.
Can anybody prove he did?
I noticed that Rose now has a reality show called something like “Hits and Mrs.” —looks pathetic like most of these shows which bring you right inside the house.
I accept that he never bet against his team. But maybe he should not have violated the rules and lied to everyone for so many years.
Hope I am not misunderstanding your intent, but if you are defending him because he was a great baseball player and you are a fan of his, I guess you will have to give a pass to those who defend scumbag Clinton because they are fans of his.
Cheating scumbags and liars are cheating scumbags and liars in any profession.
The personality traits of those who deeply desire and pursue fame are, to put it mildly, unattractive.
It is no less unethical if he did not bet against his own team. He was the coach, calling the shots. He may not have called on a certain player one game when he wasn’t betting to save him for another game the next night when he was betting.
This is especially critical if the player is a relief pitcher. He may not have bet against his team, but he may have tried a bit “harder” to win games that he bet on.
They were relevant before he started lying, not after.
He doesn't seriously believe this is going to work, does he? This isn't the average US Low Information Voter he's dealing with here.
Great post - thanks.
Can anybody prove he did?
Since he lied about betting on Baseball for years, the burden is not on the rest of us to prove his guilt. He has to prove he's telling the truth about this one thing, while he lied about every thing else. And I don't think that's possible, so screw him.
He's been made an example of, and an example he will stay, despite his apologists.
Yes, it wasn't just that he lied, he used money and power to punish anyone who would expose his lie.
The way he treated his wife told me all I needed to know about this POS. The unfolding of present events just confirms it.