OK, because Elliotte asked, and I respect him as someone who's probably already seen the Canadiens exhibit at the Hockey HOF while I have not, I will attempt to present a substantive reply to one of CL's critiques -- namely, his problem with Part III, the point of which section seems fairly obvious to me.
(I will leave aside any response to the fourth-grade snarkery attending the basic point.)
The section begins with one athlete talking about an encounter with one president, and moves from there to a general discussion of how these two men -- and athletes/celebrities/etc. -- maintain and/or rehabilitate the public personae that developed around them during the peak of their respective career. Secondarily, it seems to be a nuanced study of how we define public figures -- do we define them by the good they have done, will do, and continue to do, or by the worst mistakes/crimes/blunders/rumors of same with which they are involved. Can they come back from the latter? Should they? Is that something they can do, or something we allow them to do? As for Tyree, it seems that he doesn't want the sum total of himself to be one catch in the SB. Albeit, it's a lower level of concern than Clinton's or Armstrong's, but as a microcosmic perspective, I think it works.
Therefore, I do not believe that you can find three random people and do the same thing, and I think an argument based on that premise fails.
