"Heroes with Feet of Clay"

 

  I always doubted Lance Armstrong, though I really wanted his story to be true. He is right about the culture of drugs in sport in the early to mid 90s and before testing for EPO and it's this which made his amazing efforts doubtful. He was too aggressive, too put out, too strident and too much of a bully. In fact he not only controlled the narrative he obviously controlled everything. He was renowned for keeping the press at arms length, for deciding where, when and who spoke with him. Others though said he could be found in the villages in France in the early morning or on a rest day, happy to do a warm up cycle with any and all locals or hangers on...

   He's one of those people paid way too much by Nike compared to the wages of the people who make their shoes and clothes. He created one lie and as he described it created this perfect story, a bubble, and it just went from there... It did get pretty big!!

   The story is a very human story and mirrors many people's fallibility. Though I certainly felt Armstrong doesn't quite get the magnitude of what he's done. It wasn't that long ago that he did tweet the photo of himself lounging around in the 'pool room' with his seven yellow jerseys framed on the wall. 

   There isn't actually room here to offer everything I'd observe about the story or the Oprah interview. I'm still thinking it through and my holiday brain has turned to mush. Despite being no body language expert it was such a mixed bag of reactions he obviously projected over the 150mins of the full interview e.g. the leg folded, touching his upper lip, pursing his lips, narrowing his eyes etc etc

   My main thought is how Lance Armstrong's story is like so many others and in contrast to so many others. Should sports people be role models? Should we put anyone 'on a pedestal'? Or will we inevitably be disappointed as each of us 'has our moments?

Was Bradman anti-catholic and a miser administrator despite having formerly been a player?

Is Carl Lewis a drug cheat?

What was the true nature of Gandhi's relationship with his wife?

How's Abraham's blended family working out?

What is David's legacy built on?

Why are the male examples more readily called to mind?

   I know only too well that I am a fallible person and I really object to the pressure for 'leaders' needing to be perfect or even set a higher standard. Instead I try to be as real as possible, asking people to see me for my faults, gifts, strengths, intent and willingness to 'own up' when I can and to minimise harm when I stuff up. I just know I make mistakes. I think if we truly see leadership as facilitation and service then the focus should be squarely on the other and if we let people down that's not good but I think it's amplified if we are set up as different. Different standpoint maybe, different expectations but not superhuman ones.

   Anyhow I guess I'm thinking aloud... which means tentatively, incompletely, but with concern for Armstrong and all people who stuff up and what the aftermath says about humanity, values, ethos, leadership etc etc