I just have to post these two links. Rick Reilly, a nationally-recognized award-winning sports journalist who writes for ESPN, wrote both of them. Here's the first one:
http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/8310275/armstrong-worth-honoring
Reilly wrote this piece in September 2012, right after the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency issued its findings on the Lance Armstrong matter. Basically, Reilly is saying "Who cares if Lance Armstrong cheated and lied about it for all those years? He's done a lot of good things, too. Plus, everyone cheats in cycling. And, by the way, I've met him and I think he's a great guy."
Now, fast forward to last week, after Armstrong went on Oprah and admitted he took performance-enhancing drugs and lied about it to everyone for over a dozen years. To make matters worse, he admitted he bullied and threatened anyone who tried to expose him as a cheat. Armstrong came off as an extremely arrogant guy who is only owning up to what he did because he's desperate to protect his fortune. The public's reaction was pretty uniform -- Armstrong's a jerk.
In the face of the public's 180-degree turn, what does our buddy Rick Reilly do? He writes this second article:
http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/8852974/lance-armstrong-history-lying
Seriously, Rick? What's changed in the past 4 months? I get that you might feel a bit silly for having been such a staunch Lance Armstrong supporter. But, I think you look even sillier assuming that your readers don't remember anything you've written. In fact, if you think that nothing you write sticks with us, why bother writing anything at all?