Derek Jeter is known not only for his skills on the baseball diamond, but also for his smooth, even-keeled demeanor.  The New York Yankees captain stayed cool as a cucumber during his recent appearance on Late Night with Jimmy Fallon.  

Jeter, who is back on the disabled list, spent two segments on the show discussing his battle with the injury bug, funny stories about he and Fallon (it looks like the two are buddies in “real life”) and he even addressed teammate Alex Rodriguez’s steroids scandal.  The interview segment is must-see TV for any sports fan.

One bit in particular had Jeter cracking up and the studio audience going wild.  Yes, Jimmy (a die-hard Boston Red Sox fan) and The Roots gave Jeter a few suggestions for a new at-bat song.  The schtick had Derek Jeter Number Two being introduced with the classic Bob Sheppard recording before he promptly walked up to home plate in the middle of the Late Night stage as The Roots and Jimmy played each ditty.   

The fact that Jeter agreed to appear on the show when A) the Yankees are having a bad season B) he’s injured and C) A-Rod and a few of his other teammates are swimming in scandal, is really impressive.  Most celebrities pull out of public appearances when faced with far less controversy than that.  

Jeter’s alleged parting gifts for lady friends gave him first-ballot entry into the Cool Athletes Hall of Fame, so this Late Night appearance is just bonus points.  

image

Public Relations, perception. 
Crisis Management, image repair.
Gatekeepers, buffer zone. 

The role of a Public Relations team is incredibly important in a time of crisis, and boy, can the job be daunting.  It truly does take a village.

Even the staunchest of  Lance Armstrong supporters can no longer deny the the fact that the world’s famous cyclist cheated, as the man who was stripped of seven Tour de France titles finally admitted to doping throughout his professional career in a televised interview with Oprah Winfrey. 

After losing everything from medals, to sponsors to his position as chairman of the Livestrong Foundation, one might think the unsympathetic and abrasive Armstrong would have little to gain by speaking out. 

"From a PR perspective, it was mission accomplished," according to Lila Brown, the founder of Ella Bee PR, a firm specializing in public relations and social media.

Seriously?? I didn’t exactly come away with that sense of optimism after watching Armstrong’s interview, but perhaps it’s time to frame things differently. 

"Lance accomplished what he set out to do and was controlled throughout most of the interview," says Brown.  "He told us what he wanted the public to know and didn’t go any deeper …He answered the questions that he knew were on everyone’s mind and he didn’t try to offer any excuses… He told us just enough to change the narrative on any further media investigation stemming from a large line of witnesses."

Brown, who represents several athletes, including Olympians Tyler Clary (swimming) and LaShawn Merritt (track & field), is one of many in the PR field tasked with helping shape the public image of their clients. 

When someone like Armstrong has an “image crisis,” a team of creative thinkers has to consider all options, playing the role of lawyer to protect the client.

"I will say that I am more at ease when I know my client is telling the truth and we have fully prepared," Brown says of choosing how much one in her position needs to know. 

A PR pro also must wear the hat of psychiatrist in an attempt to understand how the public will feel after digesting the client’s next move.

"That’s why it is important for a client to be honest from the start. It is my job to make sure the story is accurately communicated."

Just like in an athlete’s day job, practice makes perfect, as repeating situational role play helps ensure the story is communicated in a way deemed “successful” by PR standards.

"I would be concerned with my client speaking off topic and straying off message, but that is why we prepare for tough interviews by anticipating a variety of questions and how to respond," Brown says of the damage control process Armstrong and other celebrities in his situation are put through.  "We tend to understand how the public will accept certain answers. We try everything in our power to be less surprised by anything and know what to expect."

Brown drew the same conclusion as many of us when Lance opted to speak out.  After losing all of his sponsorships, the man needs to find a way to earn a living.  But more importantly in Brown’s eyes, Armstrong wants a lesser punishment than a lifetime ban so he can resume competition, a sentiment Armstrong expressed to Winfrey in the two-part interview. 

After all of the strategy meetings, focus groups, and carefully crafted blueprints aimed at precisely positioning a client, perhaps the most effective move is indeed the one that is least contrived. 

Armstrong needs to, “get back to what made so many people fall in love with him in the first place which is raising awareness for cancer,” says Brown.  Speaking about his personal battle with the disease may be the only credible, authentic chip Armstrong has left to play in the eyes of the public.

"His life’s story outside of cycling has touched so many people so he will need to find a new, sincere and unique way to connect with those affected by cancer."

(To learn more about Lila Brown, and Ella Bee PR, visit http://ellabeepr.com )

For the first time during his career a public figure, Lance Armstrong is set to let some amount of truth spill from his lips into the ears of a national television audience, thanks to an interview conducted by Oprah Winfrey.

Instead of focusing on the first public admission of doping from one of the supreme narcissists the sports world as ever seen, many have mysteriously unleashed their insults and skepticism on Oprah, in lieu of Armstrong.

Why are folks assuming this interview reeks of neglect and naivety - on Oprah’s part - without having seen it?  Sure, the Marion Jones interview wasn’t as vicious as many had hoped, but Oprah is a smart woman.  I would think she learned from that experience.

In fairness, did you watch the 30 for 30 about Marion Jones?  In an entire documentary about her journey from rags to riches to federal prison, Jones, never explicitly explained how she cheated.  She apologized for her mistakes and lies, but never said, “This is what I did.  This is when I did it.” 

Moving on to the next argument…  “Oprah isn’t qualified.”  Umm, are you KIDDING ME?

Oprah Winfrey began her career as a local news reporter.  Do you know what a news reporter’s job is?  It’s to become an expert on something new every single day.  You learn, listen, read and gather enough information to convince the audience that you are a credible source on the topic and hopefully, you pull it off and actually enlighten a person or two along the way. 

Of the +1000 people employed as on-air personalities and journalists by ESPN, what percentage do you think knows anything substantial about the sport of cycling?  I’m guessing no more than two percent. 

As a young reporter in Pocatello, Idaho, I covered auto racing, windmill manufacturing, the rodeo,  nuclear engineering at the Idaho National Laboratory, a Monster Truck show for crying out loud… do you think I knew ANYTHING about any of those things?  Nope!  But I learned.  That’s our job as reporters.

Oprah Winfrey has one of the brightest and most creative staffs television.  If you think a person who has traveled the world, worked as a reporter and interviewer for more than three decades, and who -as an overweight, African-American woman in the South- managed to create a global brand all about HERSELF won’t have the tools and resources to successfully interview Lance Armstrong, well, clearly you haven’t given the situation much thought.

But then we come to this argument.  “Armstrong is using Oprah.  He’s not going to a more credible institution or to a journalist who covered him throughout because he knows she’ll be easier on him.”

If someone picked me apart and exposed my lies over the years, I wouldn’t exactly be inclined to sit down with that person either.  The odds of Armstrong not holding a grudge are none to none.  

Armstrong may be coming clean to a degree, but he’s surely doing it for self-serving reasons.  Which outcome would you prefer… an in-depth interview that shows multiple sides of this man, with the possibility of light moments and a confession of some sort, even if it’s without all the intricate details of doping? OR would you rather have no on-camera interview at all, and instead, have a PR puppet write a short statement on Armstrong’s behalf admitting to doping? 

I’ve read columns and tweets from journalists who appear to be personally offended by Oprah landing this sit-down, as though she “stole” the interview from them, or specific media colleagues.  Newsflash:  You were never in the running for this gig, and neither was the “more deserving” person you suggested was screwed out of the interview.  It was either Oprah or Nobody as far as Armstrong’s team was concerned.  

Most of what we’ve seen from Armstrong in his career has been lies, cheating, and truckload after truckload of BS.  I would expect nothing less than manipulation and ingenuous, self-serving behavior from Armstrong, regardless of the person asking him questions.  That said, I’ll give the guy a chance to prove me wrong.

And perhaps Oprah is actually the one person who gives Lance the best shot at letting what little speck of truth and humility still exist in that hollow soul to shine through to the public.  That’s what Oprah is about.  She has the ability to connect with people on a human level in such a way that they feel safe in answering even the most judgmental questions. 

Speaking of judgment, let’s do the fair thing for Oprah by reserving it for after we’ve seen the interview.  And better yet, let’s keep the heat on Lance Armstrong, the actual antagonist who seems to have lucked out into losing the spotlight to the one name bigger than his. 

You might want to think twice the next time you ask your favorite celebrity to take a photo with you.  The keepsake could land you smack dab in the middle of a federal trial.

Wrapping its sixth week of testimony, the Roger Clemens perjury trial remains slow (two jurors were dismissed for falling asleep), complex (scientific experts used the number “quintillion” during testimony) and filled with endless faces, stories and contradictions.

When looking at the evidence, I think it’s safe to assume most of us think that yes, the Rocket juiced at some point, and yes, he straight up lied about it to Congress, under oath.  That said, there is enough reasonable doubt surrounding Clemens’ former trainer Brian McNamee’s shoddy preservation of a needle and cotton balls (containing Clemens’ DNA) in a beer can for six years to keep this case from being a slam dunk for the prosecution. 

For our purposes here, who cares about the science?  Instead, let’s talk about the smut…errr, circumstantial evidence, which is much more entertaining and easy to comprehend for those of us who didn’t take the Bar or spend four years of college in a labratory.

As one should expect, things went awry for the seven-time Cy Young winner, starting with former major-leaguer and infamous dope (multiple meanings intended) Jose Canseco. 

Note to anyone involved in sports: DO NOT GO NEAR JOSE CANSECO.

It’s too late for Rog, but others can learn from his mistakes. 

Here’s the deal:  Canseco (Clemens’ then-Blue Jays teammate) hosted a pool party at his pad in South Florida back on June 9, 1998, where McNamee testified to seeing Clemens, Canseco and another man chatting about steroids.   This anecdote was one of many that helped finger Clemens as a cheater back in 2007 when facts were being researched for the infamous Mitchell Report.

Here’s the problem:  The following is part of Clemens’ 2008 testimony, UNDER OATH, about his presence at said party:

“I never was at the party.  I wasn’t here at this — at a party that he had. I could have gone by there after a golf outing. So — but I was not at this party.”

Au contraire, according to Alexander Lowrey.  As an 11-year-old kid back in 1998, Lowrey had the rare opportunity to party poolside with several of his favorite athletes, and you’d better bet he wasn’t leaving without a picture or two. 

Lowrey was invited to the party by a handyman who worked for both his family’s business and Canseco.

Now 25 years old, Lowrey testified before the jury that aside from taking a tour of Canseco’s MTV Cribs-style estate, he played Wiffleball with some of the other kids (including Clemens’ son Koby) and even mustered up the courage to approach the eventual 11-time All-Star.

Lowrey asked Clemens for a picture, and the pitching great kindly obliged.  The prosecution showed the jury a photo of Clemens swimming in the pool and another (below) of Clemens standing in the pool with his arm around a young Lowrey sitting at the pool’s edge. 



BUSTED!!!! 

There are so many things wrong with this picture, Clemens’ receding, bleach-job being the most obvious dysfunction.  But from a legal standpoint, the more upsetting fact is the inherent proof in the photo’s existence that Clemens blatantly BS’d the House Committee back in 2008.

Lowrey’s photo and testimony lends credibility to McNamee (who spent 26 hours over a span of five days on the witness stand) while simultaneously dealing a big blow to Clemens’ believability. 

The big picture became clearer as one little photo suggested that not only has Clemens wasted the last several years of his life denying steroid use, but we the taxpayers will have spent lord knows how much money on another cheating athlete by the end of this silly trial. As if we don’t spend enough money on jerseys, tickets, parking, and TV packages!  It’s offensive. 

Note to self:  DO NOT LIE TO THE GOVERNMENT. 

Didn’t Rog pay any attention to what happened to our 42nd President?  You don’t question the meaning of “is.”  You don’t “misremember” things. 

Both Bill Clinton and Clemens got caught cheating and lied about it in Washington.  The difference is, the only person owed an explanation from Bill was Hillary, whereas Clemens is accountable to his teammates, competitors and the fans for his crimes.