The recent story (or is it an ongoing one) about professional cyclist Lance Armstrong requires a comment. The seven-time winner of cycling's premier race, the Tour De France, was stripped of his titles because of taking "shortcuts" along the way.
While it is nice that Mr. Armstrong finally admitted to having done something wrong, I believe the most natural question has to be . . .
Why did it take so long?
Yes, I am all in favor of various judicial processes running their respective courses. I cherish the innocent-until-proven guilty in all forms of deliberations, whether legal or otherwise. However, Mr. Armstrong's repeated denials of using performing-enhancing drugs -- often vehemently harsh -- over a period of several years, is a bit stunning now that he has kinda-sorta of 'fessed up to the truth.
What's my take on it? I honestly and wholeheartedly believe that Mr. Armstrong reflects a part of our culture where people feel the line between right-and-wrong is drawn at the place of self-preservation. It goes like this: "I will deny what I have done as long as it is in my best interest to do so." Again, I honestly and wholeheartedly put forward that these individuals do not believe -- in their own minds -- that they have done wrong.
Find out what's happening in Westwood-Hillsdalefor free with the latest updates from Patch.
The so-called confession comes only when outside pressure reveals that the "my best interest" philosophy no longer is "best." And that gets dangerous. Truth has become sadly relative for a long time in our culture. But it gets scary when others get hurt in the process simply because of one's desire to lift Self above Integrity.
Peace,
