Lance Armstrong and the art of non-apology

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/15/lance-armstrong-non-apology

Version 0 of 1.

It could just be that Lance Armstrong has done a deal giving Oprah Winfrey the exclusive rights to any confession he may make. Or it could be that he still doesn't think he has done anything wrong. Either way, though his visit to the Livestrong cancer charity in Austin, Texas, yesterday was billed by many as Armstrong's first PR steps towards an admission of guilt for doping offences, it was actually a classic of the art of non-apology.

"He had a private conversation with the staff, who have done the important work of the foundation for many years," Livestrong Foundation spokeswoman Katherine McLane was quoted as saying by Reuters. "It was a very sincere and heartfelt expression of regret over any stress that they've suffered over the course of the last few years as a result of the media attention."

The first thing to note is that Armstrong was apologising for something that came very low down on anybody's list of the things people working for his charity might want an apology for, such as lying bare-faced to everyone for the past 10 years or so, or putting his cancer charity in an impossible position of having to defend him regardless for the same amount of time. Those are the sort of things the Livestrong team might have hoped Armstrong would address. To apologise for "the stress he's caused..."? It's a bit like a doctor apologising at length for having kept you waiting unnecessarily for half an hour, when you've come in to discuss why she failed to diagnose your fatal condition several years previously.

Just as important is the absence of the word sorry. Armstrong expressed regret, not sorrow. Politicians and celebs only say "sorry" in absolute extremis. Tony Blair has never said sorry for anything. Rather he too has expressed regret and – on occasion – apologised for having had to take some very difficult decisions. Partly this is a legal matter; if Blair did say sorry for his failures during the war in Iraq, he might just find there were a bunch of lawyers ready to indict him for alleged war crimes. But it's also semantically important. The word "sorry" – even if said insincerely – carries a sense of personal responsibility. The word "apologise" is much more ambivalent, as it suggests the possibility of some confusion over culpability. As for "regret" ... well that's something even more arm's length.

Still, Armstrong's non-apology is still a long way off being the greatest non-apology of recent years. For that, one has to turn to Diego Maradona's explanation of his handball goal against England in the 1986 World Cup. Confronted with the video evidence, Maradona didn't back down at all. Instead, he celebrated it as an example of divine intervention. The Hand of God. This surely is Armstrong's way forward. No mealy-mouthed, "I might have done it a little bit" teary-eyed confessions on Oprah. Bring on the triumphant "syringe of God".