When unable to deny, claim ignorance.
If faced with the truth andndash; and only the truth andndash; helping the case, then tell the authorities everything, offer to sell your mother down the river for a reduction in your sentence and cry.
Cry a lot.
If you watch any police or lawyer-based dramas on today's excuse for prime time television, you've probably heard a lawyer give his client those bits of advice prior to being questioned by authorities.
The problem with television is that by the time the little hand has swept to the next full number on the clock, everything is wrapped up in pretty pink cellophane with a bow on the top.
In real life, things don't wrap up quite so quickly. Lawyers typically have a vested interest in making sure that their clients don't plead to the crimes too quickly, and so, they drag out the proceedings as long as they can.
Then, when the money-hungry shysters get their due, the process moves rather quickly.
Mark McGwire did it. Jose Conseco did it. The Giambi brothers both did it. Barry Bonds did it.
Now it's Lance Armstrong's time.
Armstrong was the focus of a two-year investigation that resulted in no charges being filed by federal prosecutors, but now the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) has filed charges and wants to strip Armstrong of his Tour De France titles, as well as ban him from cycling competition.
The first thing Armstrong did was to deny the charges of the USADA. The second thing he did was try to use the courts to stop the charges from being relevant. The courts refused to issue an injunction against the USADA to stop them from proceeding with their case.
My question is this: If Armstrong is innocent of all charges, then why would he try to stop the investigation?
And if he still professes innocence after the USADA finds him guilty, who cares what they say? Who cares what he says, for that matter?
Does anyone really believe that Armstrong didn't use steroids?
OK. So maybe they weren't technically called steroids.
Whatever they were called, they probably affected his performance, or his recovery from a performance, or his training ability.
He won seven Tour de France titles. Whether he was using performance enhancing drugs has yet to be determined and until it is, I'm not going to judge him.
I'm am going to ask though, what does it matter?
I'm not ever going to suggest that using steroids is an acceptable choice. I'm never going to advocate the use of performance-enhancing drugs, unless they are prescribed by a doctor for a legitimate medical need.
By the way, a legitimate need does not include hitting a ball further than anyone else, or pedaling faster than anyone else, or having bigger muscles than anyone else.
But, if every athlete is doing it anyway, shouldn't they just accept the fact that everybody's doing it and set new parameters for competition?
Have an all-natural league with weekly testing where no stimulants are accepted and a juicing league where anything goes.
Whatever happens, lets just make a decision and stick with it.
Deny, deny, deny Lance; as long as you're telling the truth.