EMAIL THIS PAGE       PRINT       RSS      

My message for Lance Armstrong: It's more about trust than forgiveness

The recent furor over Lance Armstrong's "confession" to Oprah Winfrey has been analyzed every which way. People are wondering if it's appropriate and even necessary to forgive such a public figure. Media guru Phil Cooke offers his perspective on why, for Lance Armstrong anyway, it's not about forgiveness; it's about trust. As a working film producer and media consultant to some of the largest and most effective nonprofit and faith-based organizations in the world, Phil is an expert in how messaging comes across to a discerning and often critical public. 

Phil's most recent book is Unique: Telling Your Story in the Age of Brands and Social Media. This article originally was published on

Millions of people are caught up in the debate about Lance Armstrong’s interview with Oprah, and some of those conversations are about whether or not to forgive. Christian tradition teaches that God does indeed forgive, but when it comes to the media and the public, it can be another matter indeed. Add to that Armstrong’s role as the founder and figurehead of a nonprofit organization that’s raised more than $500 million to support cancer survivors, and the discussion must shift to a question of trust.

When it comes to public indiscretions, most people seem to have a hierarchy. Celebrities and sports figures can get off relatively easy. Moving up the list are business leaders, then politicians, then pastors, priests, and nonprofit leaders. Those who presume to influence how we live often experience the most severe criticism when they implode, which makes Lance Armstrong such an interesting case.

Yes, he was an athlete, but because of his struggle with cancer, he positioned himself through LiveStrong as an advocate – and hero - for those in a similar battle. But after years of deceit and betrayal to his family, donors who contributed millions for his organization, and the volunteers who spent untold hours working for the cause, can that trust be rebuilt?

Watching his interview with Oprah, I kept asking these questions:

Did he man up and take responsibility? Although he acknowledged his doping, he also said he still doesn’t consider himself to be a cheater. He mentioned he actually looked up the word in the dictionary, and since most of the other competitors were doping, he still doesn’t think it applies to him. But just like in courtrooms, when it comes to the public, remorse matters, because remorse is more than an admission of guilt. It indicates that you are taking responsibility, and that’s the first step toward rebuilding trust.

Was he humble? Ego gets most people into trouble in the first place, and especially with sports, political, business, and other leaders, humility can often be a challenge. It’s impossible for a jerk to rebuild trust, therefore a humble attitude is incredibly important. But as Alessandra Stanley pointed out in the New York Times, not once did he actually look into the camera and say, “I’m sorry.”

Did he offer to repair the damage? Admission of wrongdoing is one thing, but what about all the personal reputations he’s trashed? He admitted to being a “bully” who felt a territorial need to fight back when his reputation and livelihood was threatened. But in the interview, he made little mention of re-building the bridges he so often burned with people – some who loved and admired him the most.

Trust is an easy thing to destroy and a difficult thing to rebuild, but it can be done. Even after the embarrassing episode of a White House affair with an intern, President Bill Clinton starting rebuilding. After his presidency, he launched the Clinton Global Initiative and raised millions to solve pressing challenges. While embarrassing the Office – not to mention that the public humiliation of his wife and daughter won’t be forgotten, his efforts as an ex-president have shown that he’s still capable of making a positive difference.

Personal redemption and winning back the public’s trust are two different things. One allows you to rebuild your personal life, but the other allows you to repair damaged relationships, rebuild your professional reputation, and continue to make a difference.

In Lance’s case, I think he has a long way to go.


Or, do the Scripture reader mean that we should pay attention because Scripture is being read? - Peter F. Spittler

The single events or the event chains that have the most potential to affect the projects are the “critical events” or “critical chains of events.” By identifying critical events or critical chains of events, we can mitigate their negative effects. These critical chains of events can be identified by analyzing the correlations between the main project parameters, such as project duration or cost, and the event chains. Agen Judi Bola Terpercaya Piala Dunia 2014 AGEN JUDI CASINO ONLINE SBOBET 338A INDONESIA TERPERCAYA JUDI DOMINO, AGEN DOMINO, AGEN JUDI DOMINO ONLINE INDONESIA TERPERCAYA Agen Judi Poker dan Domino Online Terpercaya Indonesia
Once events and event chains are defined, quantitative analysis using Monte Carlo simulation can be performed to quantify the cumulative effect of the events. Probabilities and effects of risks are used as input data for Monte Carlo simulation of the project schedule.[4] In most real life projects, it is necessary to supplement the information regarding the uncertainties expressed as an event, with distributions related to duration, start time, cost, and other parameters. Agen Judi Poker Online Terpercaya Indonesia
Bisnis Online dan Peluang Usaha Terbaik Indonesia Agen Judi Poker Online Terpercaya Indonesia JUDI DOMINO, AGEN DOMINO, AGEN JUDI DOMINO ONLINE INDONESIA TERPERCAYA Agen Judi Poker Online Terpercaya Indonesia

»  Become a Fan or Friend of this Blogger
Amazing voices from the faith community. These are pastors, social justice leaders, musicians, cultural influencers, filmmakers and more who blog from time to time on ConversantLife.