The instinctive answer is "Neither, thanks all the same," followed by a gulp or three of red wine while shuddering at the prospect.

But hang on a minute, either of these would be God-given gigs for any red blooded PR professional wouldn't they?

Consider Lance "Is that a massive PR purse in your pocket or are you just pleased to see me?" Armstrong. The size of his budgetary bulge alone would be enough to make any PR professional lick his or her lips. But leaving Armstrong's protruding pecuniary package to one side, both he and NZ Cricket make fascinating and contrasting PR studies.

Armstrong has clearly invested heavily in PR between being outed as sporting history's greatest cheat and opening up to Oprah and the world. New Zealand Cricket on the other hand may wish they had invested a little more, or indeed a little more wisely, to get some decent PR advice before they decided to create an instant martyr and destroy their own reputation by sacking the national captain just as he was about to go out and single handedly deliver us a sensational test win in Sri Lanka.

Armstrong's approach is interesting as he (and his undoubtedly well paid PR peeps) have clearly decided that the key to having any chance of leniency when it comes to his life ban from all sports and the line up of law suits he faces, is to go some small way towards winning the hearts and minds of America and the world.

The result was almost a piece of PR theatre - no doubt carefully planned, paced out and prepped for over many months - from his dress to his demeanour and the words he used to answer Oprah's 112 questions. And it needed to be. On the face of it Armstrong is an utterly unsympathetic figure - a known liar, cheat and bully who had betrayed millions of fans worldwide and the sport that brought him fame and fortune. The key was to remind the world that Armstrong is human and to have him confess his sins but do so in a way people may just relate to even if it makes them uncomfortable. And let's face it, how many of us can say we have never lied or cheated. (Very few in New Zealand according to the recent Colmar Brunton survey.) Sure, not on the monumental scale of Armstrong but given human nature there was just a chance that people everywhere would maybe just have an iota of sympathy for what he said. Throw in a liberal sprinkling of his cancer charity work and perhaps the sporting world's ultimate bête noir might not be seen as so black after all.

The master stroke of course was targeting Oprah as the vehicle. By fronting up to a single one on one interview with a less than fearsome questioner and managing his messages oh so carefully, Armstrong had his well-rehearsed say through every media outlet on the planet. The interview was arguably an even greater PR windfall for Oprah, who received almost as much profile from her interaction with Armstrong as she has throughout her stellar career. If fact the PR value to Oprah was so good it almost raises the question of how closely the Lance and Oprah camps collaborated just to make sure it all went seamlessly. Questions in advance anybody? Surely not.

From the chatter you hear around the traps, it seems Armstrong's dance with Oprah has done him no harm in the eyes of the public and possibly has humanised him again. The authorities are likely to be less sympathetic though - it's a big call to back off on a life ban when you are never likely to see anyone more deserving of one.

While Armstrong's seemingly hopeless position may just have been helped by some polished PR, New Zealand Cricket have suffered a catastrophic collapse in credibility due to the complete lack of any PR savvy.

So much so that David White and his merry men  not only butchered the change of captaincy but stand accused by many in the media and the public, and at least one of their own, of lying to cover up the mess they made. If there is one thing worse in PR terms than making a meal of something, it is being caught trying to cover it up. Disaster.

One doesn't envy White, atrociously under resourced in the corporate PR area (New Zealand Cricket's only communications professional travels with the team, we're told), he has had his feet held to the fire by the media and the public. He is clearly feeling the heat all the way up to his armpits and his demeanour reflects that level of comfort.

The simple PR lesson of course it that if you are planning a significant change in your organisation, especially one that will have implications publically, for god's sake get some PR advice before you  start. In the case of NZ Cricket, had they done so I suspect they wouldn't have been advised to try and sack the captain half way though a tour on the quiet, have it leaked to the media, make it look like they were making up some fairy story to cover up the cock up, hold press conferences when they had nothing to say, only to put the media onto the scent of some additional information they should never have mentioned.

Their sole PR strategy now seems to be hoping the team wins to distract punters form the slapstick sideshow. Seems to have worked over the last week. Bring on England.

Back to the original question - why would anyone take on either of these two apparently hopeless PR cases? For the same reason a mountain climber takes on Mt Everest - the challenge is irresistible and the only way is up.