This is my take on Lance Armstrong, if he was innocent he would take a Lie Detector test. Lie detector tests are very accurate. He doesn't even have to publish the results. Take a test and if he passes he contracts an independent evaluator to conduct a public test. If he fails the public test he publishes the back-up test.
There is one reason he wont take the test. It is because he is guilty of cheating.
Armstrong is one of those rare athletes that seems to be beyond criticism. All the charity work and cancer awareness has made him a teflon celebrity. Much like Bill Clinton, people knew he lied, but liked the guy. In Toronto I use the example of Leaf player Wendel Clark. Wendel was so beloved in Toronto, fans ignored the fact that he was a defensive liability, was a selfish player that never passed the puck. You can't convince a Leaf fan that Wendel wasn't an all-round, great two-way player.
I work in the insurance business and there is a company that will offer a suspected arsonist the right to take a lie detector test. If they pass, the claim is covered, if they fail the test cannot be used in court against the claimant. It is the perfect litmus test. If you have nothing to hide there is no reason not to take the test. Anytime I hear of a high profile person accused of a crime, who claims innocence, I want them to take a lie detector test.
No comments:
Post a Comment