Renowned ex-cyclist Lance Armstrong is expected to appear on the Oprah Winfrey Network this week to admit his use of banned performance-enhancing drugs before his memorable seven Tour de France victories.

But as the world reacts to Armstrong’s confession, the question remains as to how the world should view the man once considered the most influential athlete in the world and the legacy he leaves behind — which includes the Livestrong Foundation, which has raised more than $470 million to fight cancer.

There is no denying the despicable reality of Armstrong’s actions, even more so his emphatic dedication to lying about them. Armstrong cheated and lied about doing it under oath during a court deposition in 2005 and in the media multiple times after that. Armstrong will have to face many people regarding his actions — the World Anti-Doping Agency, all of his past sponsors, all of his past team mates all of the people who claimed that he was doping before and all of his fans.

But nobody understands the seriousness of his actions more than Armstrong himself.

More than anything that Armstrong has accomplished, recovering from his reputation will turn out to be the second most trying fete he will ever face.

Regardless of the implications that doping will bring, Armstrong’s influence extends far beyond his accomplishments as an athlete. When he was 25, he was diagnosed with stage three testicular cancer that spread to his lungs and brain.

Armstrong battled through cancer, got back on his bike and won the Tour de France seven times in a row. It made for an inspirational story and Armstrong lived the life of a celebrity and hero for years after that, starting Livestrong Foundation in 1997. Armstrong reportedly apologized to Livestrong before taping the interview.

He was one of the few bicyclists who were a household name and an inspiration to those affected by cancer.

His story forces the public to question the standards that we place on athletes and the pedestal we put them on just to watch as they notoriously fall.

While there is no sense or humility in rationalizing Armstrong’s actions, there is humility in allowing Armstrong — and his foundation — the chance at a normal and vitriol-free life as long as he tells the truth.

Armstrong, like the majority of people, was prone to the inevitable cadence of feats and failures that define the human condition. Despite how much he may have disappointed those who looked up to him, it would be unwise for us to overlook his contributions outside of professional cycling and his storied battle against cancer.

Santa was a little late for hockey fans in America, but the gift of sanity finally arrived in the form of a new NHL Collective Bargaining Agreement about two weeks after Christmas and after several months of missed games — 510 in all.

The lockout, which was the league’s second such labor dispute in eight years, caused all sorts of changes in the way the league is run, mostly at the expense of those actually playing hockey. Team owners were able to wrangle a further seven percent of league revenue away from the players, put new caps on contract lengths and institute one-time “amnesty buyouts” on expensive deals.

In return, the players got some improvements to their pension fund. Fans got less. And in eight years, the owners have the option to opt out of the CBA again, which means we’re staring down another season of lost games in 2022.

But in the meantime, the players will lace up and play a shortened 48-game season, one missing the Winter Classic, the NHL Premiere series in Europe and more than 500 other nights worth of national anthems, one-timers and final buzzers.

But while the entirety of this drawn-out lockout has been an absolute travesty, the shortened season may be a blessing in disguise for both players and fans.

For the players, who often are ground into pieces by the September-to-June marathon of a schedule, a shortened season should cut down on wear-and-tear injuries and extend careers. The short schedule has also forced the league to cut inter-conference play entirely, which means no more exhausting cross-country road trips (I don’t think the Vancouver Canucks will miss their midseason trips to Florida).

Fans will benefit as well from fewer games, as each takes on further significance in the sprint to the playoffs. Winning or losing streaks will double in importance, as a team that comes out of the gates slowly or loses five straight might fall out of the running entirely. And matchups against divisional rivals, which make up 18 of the 48 games, will be more crucial and more heated than ever.

Shortening up the season is a concept that can help other sports too, as we saw in the wildly exciting 66-game NBA season eventually won — as The Observer’s associate sports editor Matt DeFranks has probably already told you — by the star-studded Miami Heat.

It will never happen because another night of games is another night to fill stadiums and make money, but play would benefit from trimming back overlong seasons.

Baseball was never meant to be played in November, and back when Lord Stanley handed out his first Cup, you can bet it wasn’t in June. Cut the MLB schedule to 120 games and the NHL and NBA to 60 apiece. You can add in more midseason off days, and still cut down on some of the most brutal road trips, as well as the whole last month of the season.

And if you think fewer games are less fun, just look up to the king of American sports, the NFL. It runs circles around the other leagues, thanks to 16 do-or-die matchups that define our weekends.

So enjoy this frantic NHL season, and hopefully it can spur our sports to embrace the saying, as old as Lord Stanley himself, “Less is more.”

I just hope it doesn’t take more mindless lockouts to do it.

During the Tom Crean era in Bloomington, the Indiana men’s basketball team has surpassed several hurdles, but Hoosier fans may have to wait another year before IU can take down Wisconsin with Crean at the helm.

After never truly getting into an offensive rhythm, save an 18-point first half performance from sophomore forward Cody Zeller, the Hoosiers couldn’t surmount a strong-enough comeback after falling behind by double-digits in the second half, losing 64-59 to the Badgers.

Coming into Tuesday’s matchup with Wisconsin, the Hoosiers had been held to less than 70-points just twice this season, both times resulting in wins against Georgia and Iowa.

But in nine of the last 10 meetings between the Hoosiers and the Badgers, IU had reached the 70-point threshold just once, a Big Ten tournament loss last season 79-71.

Junior guard Victor Oladipo put the Hoosiers on the board quick, though, with a 3-pointer from the top of the key in IU’s first possession.

From there, though, the Badgers were able to stifle most of IU’s offensive production in the first half, holding the team to just 32 first half points as well as just three points on the fast break.

The lone bright spot for the Hoosiers in the first 20 minutes came from Zeller, who went on two scoring runs, of eight and six points, respectively, to help keep the Hoosiers in the thick of things. He finished the half with 18 points, and along with senior forward Christian Watford’s 3-pointer with 20.8 seconds left in the half, the Hoosiers went into the locker room with a 32-31 lead.

But in the second half, it appeared that Wisconsin Coach Bo Ryan had found a way to neutralize Zeller down low by eliminating him as an open option for that extra pass which burned the Badgers in the first half. Zeller managed just five points in the second half to finish with a game-high of 23.

And without much scoring late from the sophomore forward, the IU offense struggled.

The Hoosiers fell behind by as many as 10 points in the second half as Wisconsin built up a lead during a 2:54 stint midway through the half where IU failed to score and the Badgers rattled off nine-straight points to go up 47-39.

The Wisconsin lead would reach its peak at 51-41 to cap a 13-2 Badger run, but the game seemed to turn from there for a moment.

The Hoosiers, as a team, seemed to find their offensive touch for the first time all game. Watford and Oladipo hit back-to-back buckets for IU, with a steal from Zeller in between, and IU was now back within a couple possessions.

The game stalled for more than two-and-a-half minutes as several loose-ball and foul calls failed to go IU’s way as Hoosier Nation nearly reached a boiling point, but with three-straight Hoosier free throws and a 3-pointer from freshman guard Kevin “Yogi” Ferrell, IU was back within one, 52-51.

But the IU offense simply couldn’t keep the momentum going.

The Hoosiers would make just one field goal after Ferrell’s three with 4:43 left, and down the stretch, Wisconsin again pulled farther ahead with a string of six free throws to end the game and give IU it’s 11th-straight loss to the Badgers.

Although comedian Louis C.K. has gained prominence in the last few years for his leading role on the critically praised FX television series “Louie,” C.K. continues to reach out to live audiences across the country. The television show utilizes a mixture of scripted storylines and C.K.’s stand−up comedy routines, providing viewers with a taste of C.K.’s self−deprecating humor. While the show features original material for each episode, C.K.’s live stand−up shows parallel the stories within “Louie” as he describes his everyday ordeals with his daughters, women and the rest of society.

C.K. performed several stand−up shows at the Boston Symphony Hall from Jan. 3 to Jan. 5 on his most recent tour. Each night consisted of an early show beginning at 7 p.m. and a late show beginning at 10 p.m.

For the late show on C.K.’s final night in Boston, comedian Gary Gulman opened the performance with a 15−minute routine. Gulman, who has appeared on both “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno” and“The Late Show with David Letterman,” also earned the spot of runner−up during two seasons of “Last Comic Standing,” and received a positive response from the Boston audience. Gulman, employing a Boston accent, played up the show’s location by presenting a well−liked bit on the New England Patriots’ Tom Brady.

When Gulman introduced C.K. onstage, the audience applauded wildly, clearly eagerly anticipating the next hour and a half. C.K. introduced his act with a short anecdote about his first trip to Boston Symphony Hall, when he came with his father to see a classical music performance. C.K. divulged that this trip marked the first moment he realized he had full control over the act of killing himself. The audience roared with laughter in response.

C.K. is known for telling simple stories that simultaneously resonate with broader existential concepts, and this evening’s performance was no different. C.K. continued life and death themes throughout various segments of his show, including a hilarious piece on why people are so lucky to have time on earth. While audience members who may not be familiar with C.K.’s style might have expected a more uplifting indicator of the human race’s good fortune, C.K. fans were unsurprised when the comedian reduced the equation to, “We get to have sex!” The joke itself does not necessarily appear original or creative when taken out of context, but C.K. succeeds because he forms clear connections with his audience. In his fearlessness, he keeps nothing from them and in doing so builds up a bond similar an old friend who knows us at our best but more particularly at our worst. The awkward, the painful and the crude are all fair play because of this trust C.K. establishes. We are all in the same position as he is and we all share similar experiences.

The most controversial section of C.K.’s show was without a doubt his finale, which the comedian began by explaining that he often views events and ideas with an “of course, but maybe” mentality. For example, he first states that “of course” safety measures should be taken for people with nut allergies. “But maybe,” C.K. continued, those who are so allergic that contact with nuts is fatal should be allowed to die. He went on to set up another instance using the Make a Wish Foundation and the audience began to murmur and groan, deeming the topic inappropriate for humor.

C.K. maintained his hold on the audience, however, and moved on to the subject of soldiers being killed in action. At this point, heads shook and “oh mans” could be heard across the theatre, but C.K. interjected, “Hey, you laughed at those other ones — you’re all in this with me now.” The now complicit audience laughed with a sense of guilt as C.K. finished the bit. They recognized that the master comedian had proved that there is a comic dichotomy: a comedian can remain distant from a subject and stay on the outside, never taking a chance with a controversial punch line for fear of going into the politically incorrect, or a comedian can allow themself to be pulled into the comic abyss and find side−splitting and profound humor in even the darkest of subjects. C.K. has always chosen the latter, and his ability to balance with the scandalous with the thought−provoking and the profound speaks to his immense skill.

Cam Newton is back on campus, and it’s not to play football.

Newton is enrolled at classes at Auburn, AU officials confirmed to WSFA 12 News’ Sally Pitts. He is working toward getting his sociology degree.

Photos of Newton in class made the rounds on social media. Head coach Gus Malzahn, who was Newton’s offensive coordinator in 2010, tweeted, “Happy to see my man Cam back at AU this semester working toward his degree. #wareagle”

Newton attended Florida and Blinn Community College in Texas before enrolling at Auburn. During his one-year stay at Auburn, Newton led the team to its second national championship in school history and won the Heisman Trophy after a record-setting season.

Newton was drafted first overall by the Carolina Panthers in 2011, the NFL team with which he still plays. He was named Offensive Rookie of the Year and was selected to play in the 2012 Pro Bowl.

Lance Armstrong’s reputation of being a hero to thousands of admirers might have taken a hit that he will never recover from, as the retired professional road racing cyclist — who had won seven Tour de France titles over a course spanning from 1999 to 2005 — has reportedly admitted to doping in a recent interview with Orpah Winfrey, set to air this Thursday.

Armstrong, who had spent the last few years swearing that he had won his titles without any performance-enhancing drugs, is coming out with the truth after the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA)charged Armstrong with having used performance-enhancing drugs during events last summer. The USADA then sentenced Armstrong to a lifetime ban from competition late last summer, keeping Armstrong away from any major cycling events and stripping him of all his titles won since August of 1999 with his first Tour de France victory.

Following soon after, Armstrong was forced to drop out of his Livestrong foundation as chairman due to the continuing allegations. According to ESPN, Armstrong came clean in front of his staff and made an apology that led some staff members to cry early Monday morning.

This interview with Winfrey is Armstrong’s first public response since the ban brought by the USADA, according to ESPN, and in a sent text message to the AP earlier this weekend, Armstrong wrote “I told her (Winfrey) to go wherever she wants and I’ll answer the questions directly, honestly and candidly. That’s all I can say.”

The interview with Oprah Winfrey is set to air on the OWN Network on Thursday Jan. 17.

Beijing has always been good at being ‘off the charts.’ Anyone who has observed China’s remarkable economic growth or watched the opening ceremony of the 2008 Olympics can attest to this fact. Recent air pollution readings coming out of Beijing keep in step with this tradition.

At 8 p.m, on January 12^th, Beijing’s Air Quality Index was recorded to be 755, more than 200 points above the supposed maximum of 500.

China’s environmental woes are no secret. The 2008 Olympics turned the global spotlight onto China’s pollution problems when concerns where raised as to whether or not the athletes participating would be able to perform at their usual levels due to the overwhelming levels of air pollution in Beijing. The World Wildlife Fund reports that in addition to severe air pollution, around 40 percent of the rivers in China contain water unfit for human consumption. Nearly 30 percent of China’s land has suffered from desertification, the environmental phenomenon in which dry land loses water, wildlife, and vegetation. In 2006, China passed the United States to become, by volume, the world’s largest producer of greenhouse gases.

The country has, of course, taken steps to mitigate the environmental issues it faces. In November of last year, China announced the introduction of a mandatory “social risk assessment” for all major industrial projects as a method of gaging the environmental impact of new developments. On a smaller scale, the government of Guangzhou, one of the biggest automobile manufacturing cities in China, announced that it would begin to limit the number of vehicles on the road with lotteries and auctions for license plates for new cars, thus cutting down the amount of new cars on the city’s street by roughly half.

But the news coming out of Beijing this weekend signals that the country’s pollution problem has escalated to a new level. The index, which is established upon the Environmental Protection Agency’s standards, marks an air pollution rating of 400 or above as “hazardous for all.” The level recorded in China on Saturday night was nearly double that. By contrast, on the same day, using the same standards, New York City received an air quality rating of 19. The rising levels of pollution in China are a testament to the fact that the steps taken by the Chinese government are neither dramatic nor intense enough to seriously combat the issue.

By virtue of the ecological structures of our planet, climate change isn’t just China’s problem; it’s the world’s. Higher greenhouse emission levels from China means increased levels of climate change globally. Water pollution in China translates to lower water quality worldwide. Scientists across the United States have pointed to climate change as one of the chief causes for the severity of weather disasters such as Hurricane Sandy. 2012 was the hottest year ever recorded.

Hence, climate change is, by nature, an international issue. Ultimately, this means the United States has less control over this issue than issues such as gun control or the debt ceiling. The United States acting unilaterally in the eleventh hour will bring no solution to this problem. Furthermore, that same international aspect of the issue means that the actions of any and every country around the globe have repercussions in the U.S. However, the United States is and, for the foreseeable future, will be a superpower. In terms of environmental issues, this means the responsibility of seriously tackling the issue lies with the U.S. Only once we begin to do so, will China and other countries follow in step. We must show a commitment to putting an end to man-made climate change before we can expect other nations to do the same. Moreover, the scale of the issue means that there exists no quick fix, no silver bullet. Instead, solutions to the problem must be multi-faceted and must be based around a long-term plan. All of these factors point to the fact that the time for action is now.

In roughly a week, President Obama will be inaugurated for his second term. During the next four years, he will have to address gun control, the debt ceiling, and tax policy. All of these issues are pressing and deserve attention. However, time spent focusing on these problems cannot become time lost addressing climate change. President Obama mounted both his campaigns on the slogan, “Change We Can Believe In.” And whether you believe it or not, climate change’s consequences will be severe.

Dear Katherine,

My girlfriend just brought up the idea of an “open” relationship. We are falling for each other, but she has hesitations about committing fully. I couldn’t imagine not being with her at all. Do you think an open relationship could work?

Sincerely,

Open or Closed

Dear Open or Closed,

I’ve tried an open relationship once. Because of a long past, the boy and I loved each other; yet, I pushed to keep my options open. We were together, yet not. We acted as boyfriend and girlfriend, yet weren’t. I loved him, yet I wasn’t sure I wanted to be with him. It’s as confusing as it sounds.

Suffice to say, it didn’t last for more than a month. It was too stressful. Too hurtful. One of us wanted it more than the other. The idea of him with someone else was hard. The idea of me with someone else was hard.

There are some couples that live out an “open,” free relationship with their partners. They enjoy the liberty and excitement. Some even participate in sex with other people — together — in what’s called “swinging.” The enthusiasts of the act themselves are evidence of those who aren’t immediately crushed at the thought of his or her loved one with another. It’s evidence that an open relationship can work for some people. To put it bluntly: I’m not one of those people, nor will I ever be.

Maybe you’re different. Maybe you’d be okay with the thought of your partner in bed with someone else, the thought of your partner kissing someone else. Maybe you’d learn to accept that, enjoy that even.

But maybe you are like me, and it twists your heart to even think about them with another person. Maybe you’re like me, and you need either all of a person, or none at all.

Analyze your desires. Analyze if you’re just doing it to please your partner or yourself. If your gut is trying to tell you something, listen to it.

Sincerely,

Katherine