flicker said:
If LeMond exposes Lance and can prove it it will gut the American side of cycling. I wish Greg realized this.
Lemonds fault? Huh?
I gleaned this from an excellent editorial about Tiger Woods in today’s London Times. Same applies to Armstrong methinks in the way that he has profited from the image that he is a “clean” athlete.
__
The situation of Woods could not be more different. He and his advisers have systematically cultivated a public image — an image that now appears to be a sham — specifically to expand his wealth on a grand scale.
In the past few years he has earned more money from his deals with Nike, Gillette and other sponsors than he could ever hope to earn on a golf course.
To put it another way, his public image and his day job as a repository of corporate endorsement income are indistinguishable. It has been estimated by Forbes, the business magazine, that he has a fortune in excess of $1 billion (about £613 million).
Woods’s supporters will doubtless argue that consumers buy products endorsed by Woods not just because of his image, but also because he is a jolly good golfer — and that is doubtless true as far as it goes.
But only a fool would deny that Woods’s unprecedented earning power is umbilically linked to the positioning of the world’s top golfer as a family man: safe, clean, upstanding, decent, the kind of boy you would want your son to be like, and your daughter to marry.
The success of IMG, his management company, in constructing that image may be measured by the world’s astonishment at recent revelations.
Do not forget that Woods has accepted money from magazines to come into his home to photograph his life of marital bliss, along with his wife and children. Do not forget that he once allowed Nike to rifle his home videos and screen scenes of him and his late dad on Father’s Day with the message “To Dad and Fathers Everywhere”.
To put it simply, Woods’s right to privacy has been fatally undermined not by his earning lots of cash beyond the golf course, but by his hypocrisy. He could have had sex with a platoon of cocktail waitresses while dressed in a pair of suspenders and still been entitled to privacy had he not, at the same time, been pocketing a sizeable cheque from Gillette via a management company that had spent three weeks figuring out how to place a soft-focus picture of Woods, his baby in his arms, and his wife looking on lovingly.
Even Eady, the bête noire of Fleet Street editors because of what they see as his tendency to come down on the side of privacy against free speech, has understood this point, as have most of the rest of the world.
Put simply, it is not credible for anyone to trade lucratively on their public image and to expect the press to leave them be when there is evidence of behaviour (albeit behind closed doors) that directly contradicts that image.
Of course, some will want to blame the media for the growing and increasingly desperate ramifications of Tiger’s tale. They will argue that the trials and tribulations of a wounded family are being magnified by the prurience of the websites, newspapers and broadcasters who continue to follow the story in various degrees of detail. They will rail against what they see as a media, on both sides of the Atlantic, who are out of control.
But, although there is a legitimate question about proportionality here, there is a more fundamental point. Ultimately, there is one person to blame for this scandal, and that is Woods himself.