RATH: Lancing Faith
Lance Armstrong gets away with it on Oprah (Image: Supplied)
Related coverage
Gripping, riveting, captivating. Take your pick of adjectives, the fact is, Lance Armstrong’s interview with Oprah Winfrey was that rare type of television that captures the world’s attention.
As the interview unfolded it became increasingly clear that Armstrong, if not a full blown sociopath certainly possesses many of the characteristics usually associated with one.
This should (if we’re thinking rationally) evoke feelings of sympathy for Armstrong rather than the anger and vitriol it appears to have produced. After all, no-one would choose the mind of a sociopath any more than one would choose to develop cancer.
While much of the commentary on the Armstrong saga centres on an incredible tale of deceit and denial, I can’t help but find myself drawn to a seemingly peripheral aspect of this story. Namely, the issue of belief.
Lance Armstrong personified the triumph of the human spirit: the cancer patient who beat the disease and then conquered the toughest race on the planet, seven times. His story was so powerful, so intoxicating that he became a symbol of hope and courage to millions.
As the myth grew so too did the untruths required to perpetuate it. Until all that was left was a snowball of lies, forging ahead, at all costs, no matter what.
The foundation of Livestrong ensured there were would be no lack of willing voices to support the Armstrong narrative. A yellow army of disciples, each one spreading the gospel and each a shining example of how belief is often formed on the basis of what we would like to be true rather than what is likely to be true.
Each time Armstrong raced and won, or defended himself against seemingly corrupt accusations of doping his legend grew, and any criticism of Armstrong became public relations suicide for those who dared. His defence included ruthless intimidation, lawsuits and slander. Armstrong’s most devout supporters added death threats to the arsenal.
Although the majority of Armstrong’s supporters were not zealots they to helped spread false beliefs. As the evidence against Armstrong mounted we were told his former team mates were all bitter, desperate and jealous.
We were told that he rode clean for years whilst all around him doped. For many these extraordinary claims did not require extraordinary evidence, Armstrong’s word was good enough.
Dogma is often responsible for that thinking which prevents us from seeing reality for what it is. And it’s exactly this type of thinking that allowed the Armstrong myth to survive in the face of overwhelming evidence. Perhaps most sickeningly bad arguments in his defence were supported by those who pointed to his charitable work as evidence of his integrity.
Which brings me to the real hero of this story: Science.
Unfortunately for Armstrong, science does not care about myths, fables and legends, or what we’d like to believe. Science is interested only in the truth.
For years, Armstrong hid amongst the gaps provided by scientific ignorance, always one step ahead of drug testing protocols. Until he wasn’t. Retroactive tests of Armstrong samples produced a raft of positive results. Then his biological passport indicated a less than one in a million chance that his biomarker variances could have occurred naturally.
Without hard evidence it would always have been Armstrong’s iron clad word vs the dissension of mere mortals. Had not science unshackled us from the myth how many of us would continue to spread it? How many of us would remain not simply ignorant but defiantly so?
Yesterday Armstrong said of his life: “I mean it’s just this mythic, perfect story, and it wasn’t true.”
What is true, is that the Armstrong myth is now an empty space. Filling that space with something real remains a battle between what Armstrong has done in his life to date and what he chooses to do with the time he has left.
There are many lessons to be garnered from the rise and fall of Lance Armstrong. None more important than the idea that curiosity, scepticism and reason are the greatest means by which we can pursue truth and meaning in our lives.
All that’s required to escape irrational beliefs is the courage to follow evidence and reason wherever they may lead.
Former Wallaby Clyde Rathbone has returned to Super Rugby with the ACT Brumbies, following an injury-forced retirement from all forms in 2009. He writes guest columns for The Roar, and will blog his journey back to professional rugby in 2013.
Looking to join The Roar team? We're searching for an experienced Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. Yes, this does mean you get to work with the site all day long! If you're a digital media sales star, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
- Explore:
- Cycling, Lance Armstrong

January 21st 2013 @ 9:17am
sheek said | January 21st 2013 @ 9:17am | Report comment
Good morning Rath,
“Gripping, riveting, captivating.”
Sorry, it wasn’t any of this. Perhaps if we had to choose one of the three words above, ‘gripping’ would fit the bill. All concerned were gripping their money made from the interview as hard as they could. But as a genuine expose or confession, nah!
Oprah made money, the TV network made money, sponsors advertising made money & I have no doubt lance made money, perhaps under the table.
Oprah is a drama queen & her show is a soap opera. The whole thing was a publicity stunt, a sham. Her interviews lack substance. They are merely ratings fodder, little more.
Fortunately, as you point out, Armstrong was exposed by science. The Oprah interview was a sideshow that will hopefully disappear in history.
January 21st 2013 @ 9:33am
Pot Stirrer said | January 21st 2013 @ 9:33am | Report comment
+1, Also i cant get my Head around how he was Knowingly doing what he was for the publics adoraton which turned out to be a way of making money out of cancer. On the bright side if he wasnt a professional cyclist he prob would have been a serial killer.
January 21st 2013 @ 11:50am
nickoldschool said | January 21st 2013 @ 11:50am | Report comment
+2
Oprah didn’t have the knowledge, and probably will, to expose LA as he really is. IMO, the show’s aim was to start LA’s redemption process with the masses and not come clean as some suggested beforehand. It did probably succeed in doing this.
Rath, further to sheek’s comments, I would like to add that I don’t see how one can have sympathy for this man. Pity maybe, but definitely no sympathy.
I.o your ‘gripping, captivating, riveting’, My three words for the show would be ‘ disturbing, creepy and machiavellian’. Nice prose btw, glad you’re a rugby guy
.
January 21st 2013 @ 6:17pm
Rath said | January 21st 2013 @ 6:17pm | Report comment
Sheek,
The Oprah interview was never going to lead to much (that is not already known) in terms of facts or details regarding the Armstrong saga. From the perspective that the interview gave us insight into Armstrong as a person I found it truly fascinating.
From the cold lack of remorse, the mannerisms, facial expressions, contradictions and feigned emotions every second of the interview was a study of a man clearly far removed from his comfort zone. As an observational insight into one example of the human condition It was very interesting to me.
January 21st 2013 @ 6:23pm
sittingbison said | January 21st 2013 @ 6:23pm | Report comment
yup I agree completely Rath, and I suspect this element was not considered by the PR machine and lawyers. I think they seriously miscalculated, the world has now see these aspects of Lance long kept hidden
January 21st 2013 @ 9:33am
jameswm said | January 21st 2013 @ 9:33am | Report comment
Good to see you branching out into other areas Rath, well written.
My biggest question after this is centres around truth. That is, how much is he lying now?
Oprah’s interviewing style centred on emotions and feeling, rather than a strict cross-examination on the evidence. For example, when Lance claimed to haave been clean since 2005, she didn’t challenge this statement. Why didn’t she say “so what do you have to say about the biological passport tests that say there’s less than a one in a million chance you were clean in (2009 I think was the year)”?
The interview showed he was a “horrible person”, as my wife put it. But can he change, can a leopard change his spots. Can he seek true redemption?
Not on current evidence. He’s still worried more about himself.
January 21st 2013 @ 6:22pm
Rath said | January 21st 2013 @ 6:22pm | Report comment
I’m of the opinion that the question is not “can he change” but rather can any person prevent change. Our consciousness is effected by all inputs, the idea that self is a static ‘object’ makes no sense to me, it is always in flux.
January 21st 2013 @ 11:42pm
SandBox said | January 21st 2013 @ 11:42pm | Report comment
Stoics would say we are like a dog leashed to an unpredictable cart. We have some control over our path, but can not wander wherever we please.
People like LA and Jobs were opposite in many ways, yet shared similar reality distortion fields. These RDFs eventually crumbled, and we were left witnessing two men tied to the same cart that the rest of us are tied to.
January 21st 2013 @ 9:47am
MV Dave said | January 21st 2013 @ 9:47am | Report comment
Can’t see how Science is the real hero…surely those that spoke up about his cheating and continued to do so despite his abuse and law suits…thinking the Irish lady O’Reilly and the one that overheard the conversation in the hospital room…hope they get some recognition for what they went through.
January 21st 2013 @ 6:25pm
Rath said | January 21st 2013 @ 6:25pm | Report comment
January 21st 2013 @ 6:25pm
Rath said | January 21st 2013 @ 6:25pm | Report comment
Without hard evidence those who spoke out would constantly have pitted their word against Armstrong’s. It’s clear how that battle would have (was) turning out.
Of course all the people who continued to speak the truth deserve credit, the point being that without science we would not be at the point where their dissension was taken seriously, at least not by the wider public.
January 24th 2013 @ 1:11pm
Clint said | January 24th 2013 @ 1:11pm | Report comment
Would it also be true to say that without science, Lance and his team of doctors would have never had the knowledge to run ‘the most sophisticated doping programme ever’? Is it not merely a case now that the science in the hands of the “good guys”, has finally caught up with science in the hands of the “bad guys”?
January 21st 2013 @ 11:11am
Zac Zavos said | January 21st 2013 @ 11:11am | Report comment
Cracking piece Rath – this is the type of writing that makes, in my opinion, The Roar so unique.
Thanks for sharing your views with us.
January 21st 2013 @ 3:46pm
Ted said | January 21st 2013 @ 3:46pm | Report comment
mate….you talking up the site or what?
January 21st 2013 @ 11:23am
sledgeandhammer said | January 21st 2013 @ 11:23am | Report comment
There was a great article in the herald the other day which put forward a very strong argument for legalising performance enhancing drugs. I agree with this stance and don’t believe for a minute that Lance Armstrong is a cheat. EPO, steroids and the like do not make poor athletes great, they don’t allow mediocre talent to rise to the top. They simply allow athletes to train harder and recover more quickly. This is something which is done regardless of drugs, through use of caffeine, recovery chambers, ice baths, specialised equipment, etc, etc. There is no level playing field, money does buy success regardless of drugs. Drugs are also not dangerous to health if administered correctly. In this day and age, if we have the technology, let’s use it. And by technology I don’t just mean carbon fibre bikes, I also include EPO and steroids.
January 21st 2013 @ 11:41am
jameswm said | January 21st 2013 @ 11:41am | Report comment
Nah – some people react better to PEDs than others.
Also, where do you draw the line with kids and over-ambitious parents?
January 21st 2013 @ 2:47pm
simmo green said | January 21st 2013 @ 2:47pm | Report comment
I’m not so concerned about Armstrong, I’m more concerned about the mediocre reporting that has featured so heavily throughout this saga. I cannot think of one author that has even a fundamental understanding of Pro Cycling, it’s history, nor why drugs have been prevalent for more than ninety years. Australians think the definition of an arduous athletic performance is Peter Siddle bowling thirty overs, or Paul Gallen playing the full eighty, they have no concept of what the body is required to do throughout the course of a Pro Cycling season. You could do worse than suck up these words from the winner of the TDF in 1923, Henri Pelissier:-
‘You have no idea what the Tour de France is”, Henri said. “It’s a Calvary. Worse than that, because the road to the Cross has only 14 stations and ours has 15. We suffer from the start to the end. You want to know how we keep going? Here…” He pulled a phial from his bag. “That’s cocaine, for our eyes. This is chloroform, for our gums.”This”, Ville said, emptying his shoulder bag “is liniment to put warmth back into our knees.”And pills. Do you want to see pills? Have a look, here are the pills.” Each pulled out three boxes.
“The truth is”, Francis said, “that we keep going on dynamite.’Henri spoke of being as white as shrouds once the dirt of the day had been washed off, then of their bodies being drained by diarrhoea, before continuing:
“At night, in our rooms, we can’t sleep. We twitch and dance and jig about as though we were doing St Vitus’s Dance…”
“There’s less flesh on our bodies than on a skeleton”, Francis said.
The moralising is sickening. Where were you people when Ian Thorpe returned two unusually high readings, that Swimming Australia were told not once, by twice by FINA to investigate? Have you studied Cadel Evans time in the Pro peloton? Do you know which teams he has worked for and what their history reveals?
I have no love for Armstrong, but the bloke was the best rider in each of his TDF victories, as were Eddie Merckx, Hinault, Indurain, Anquetil, Coppi, Bartali and Fignon before him.
January 21st 2013 @ 2:54pm
Pot Stirrer said | January 21st 2013 @ 2:54pm | Report comment
You sound like a cyclist who is desperatley trying to not feel duped by his hero. Or that the sport of cycling is some how more arduos than any other. If no one took any of what you said to get an advantage than none of them would need to. Its not a race against the clock. Its race against the other riders
January 21st 2013 @ 3:14pm
simmo green said | January 21st 2013 @ 3:14pm | Report comment
I don’t have cycling ‘heroes’, but I do have profound respect for Eddie Merckx and his achievements. There is no sport as arduous or physically demanding as cycling, there’s no ‘somehow’ about that. The Tour includes a prologue and two individual TT’s, all contests against the clock. In case you hadn’t noticed the event includes several stages in both the Pyrenees and the Alps, where putting time and distance between you and your opponents is key to success. The rider who excels in these disciplines will usually find himself on the podium in Paris.
January 21st 2013 @ 3:50pm
Pot Stirrer said | January 21st 2013 @ 3:50pm | Report comment
Fair enough but do you not question the whole sport now ? I do.
January 22nd 2013 @ 8:39am
simmo green said | January 22nd 2013 @ 8:39am | Report comment
No, the Armstrong saga does not make me question the integrity of the sport because drugs have been a fact of life in the Peloton for more than ninety years. The assumption is that they’re PEDs that give riders a clear advantage over their rivals, which is a flawed position. There is strong medical evidence to suggest that riders who do not use EPO could not complete a major Tour. EPO allows riders to maintain a required power output for a longer period before exhaustion. Waking up with a haemocrit level of 52% allows you to compete the next day, 38% means you can’t get out of bed. The expectations of the UCI, Tour Organisers, Sponsors and the Media are unreasonable. If the riders had their way the Tour would last two weeks, have three rest days and stages limited to 150kms. Won’t happen. Never liked Armstrong personally, but he did raise $500mill more for cancer than the AJC/Tabcorp or the Waterhouses ever did
January 22nd 2013 @ 8:51am
MV Dave said | January 22nd 2013 @ 8:51am | Report comment
So drugs have been part of Cycling for 90 years…and this is still referred to as a sport? That the people…authorities, officials, riders, media etc have allowed this to happen is a pretty sad reflection on this ‘Sport’. How many riders have died due to drugs in Cycling? The fact that no result in the TdF or presumably other major cycling events can be trusted for legitimacy seems to be the ‘Sports’ reward for having kept its proverbial head in the sand for so many years.
January 21st 2013 @ 6:39pm
Rath said | January 21st 2013 @ 6:39pm | Report comment
If there was a single clean rider competing against Armstrong then by definition he is a cheat, how is this not clear?
In the future I think science will produce a number of “supplements” that mimic the action of PED without the deleterious side effects. Until then I think it’s immoral to allow them in sport.
Armstrong by his own admission does not believe that we could have achieved what he did without PED. Suggesting drug assisted athletes do not possess a huge advantage over clean athletes is to fail to understand the effects of modern day PED.
Whether an athlete is poor, mediocre or outstanding is irrelevant, taking illegal drugs provides a doper with an unfair advantage over a clean one.
January 21st 2013 @ 7:01pm
sledgeandhammer said | January 21st 2013 @ 7:01pm | Report comment
Personally I don’t like the terminology ‘doper’ and ‘illegal drugs’ as it sounds very emotive and perhaps a tad ideological. If we look at the issue from a rational point of view, than we might discover that having accredited doctors on hand to administer a safe level of PEDs is not such a bad thing, particularly for sports such as cycling.
In terms of fairness, sport isn’t fair. Regardless of drugs some athletes from certain countries have greater access to facilities, coaching and diet which all give them as much advantage as PEDs when compared to athletes from less developed nations. So on the one hand we are fine with protein shakes, hyperbaric chambers and high altitude training, but mention the word ‘drug’ and suddenly our morals are offended.
Cheating is an interesting accusation as well. I guess if breaking the rules of the sport is cheating, than Armstrong was a cheat. This doesn’t however mean he was underserving of his victories. Personally I’m not a blind believer in rules, which are man made, and often politically motivated to begin with. So the fact Armstrong broke some rules doesn’t bother me.
January 21st 2013 @ 9:03pm
Rath said | January 21st 2013 @ 9:03pm | Report comment
sledgeandhammer,
Not liking particular words has nothing to do with them being accurate descriptions. If something is both a drug and illegal it seems strange to consider the term ‘illegal drug” an emotive description rather than a factual one.
It’s incredibly naive to think that legalising PED would lead to “accredited doctors on hand to administer a safe level of PEDs”
Comparing lower quality facilities or coaching to PED usage is a very poor false equivalency argument. Poor coaching or facilities raise no moral questions, they are merely a fact of circumstance. Our morals are offended by the use of drugs because they raise a very long list of moral and ethical questions.
Again it’s silly to group all rules together, some are superfluous while others are clearly important. Not being a blind believer in rules requires one to assess each rule individually.
What Armstrong did is so clearly unethical that it bothers me that it seems not to have bothered you.
January 22nd 2013 @ 3:43pm
simmo green said | January 22nd 2013 @ 3:43pm | Report comment
I think you’re defending grimly in the ‘red zone’ here mate, that’s a flimsy default position. Traditionally, those riders who have resisted their team’s special ‘medical programmes’ have either not been hired or found themselves out a job. Could I suggest you read Paul Kimmage’s book, ‘A Rough Ride’, among others.
I keep saying it, but as a society we have little understanding of Pro Cycling, but are happy to moralise and make judgements about it’s participants. No one wants to discuss the endurance/recovery issue in relation to EPO or transfusions, they just assume that they’re PED’s pure and simple. The question you need to ask yourself is what sort of TDF will we have when riders are operating with normal haematocrit levels? The answer is one where less than half of them will make Paris
It’s not footy, cricket, swimming, rowing or triathlons, it’s a brutal and unyielding sport, in an incredibly competitive atmosphere. If you truly look at what these guys do between January and November, it’s not possible on a diet of gatorade and cream buns
January 24th 2013 @ 12:02am
Matt h said | January 24th 2013 @ 12:02am | Report comment
I’m sorry, your position is just horrifying. I assume that if your 10 year old takes up cycling you will encourage him to take PED’s? When he dies of a heart attack at 42 will you say it was worth it? If this is the reality of the sport then it needs to be banned.
January 24th 2013 @ 10:53am
simmo green said | January 24th 2013 @ 10:53am | Report comment
I raced both the track and road at an acceptable level domestically and often ride with my kids, mostly on the trails these days. All of us love the sport in it’s various forms. Riders who aspire to race professionally know well in advance how unrelenting and hard the sport is and what’s required to race at a constantly high standard. It’s never been a well guarded secret. The sport itself is not the issue, the UCI and those profit from Pro Cycling are the real culprits, not the Armstrongs
January 24th 2013 @ 11:11am
Pot Stirrer said | January 24th 2013 @ 11:11am | Report comment
Your in Denial. Your hero is nothing more than a con artist, and thats the prob the sadest part. All those fans he has let down by making them believe in a lie.
January 21st 2013 @ 12:31pm
Beardan said | January 21st 2013 @ 12:31pm | Report comment
science is the hero? Pretty sure it would have been scientists pumping him full of drugs in the first place. The real hero is the truth, which first the first time in 15 years Armstrong finally spoke. Maybe not the total truth, but more than the lies and jibber he has dished up over the last 15 years.
January 21st 2013 @ 1:39pm
Rickety Knees said | January 21st 2013 @ 1:39pm | Report comment
Science produced the truth – the USADA had the guts to chase Armstrong down ….
January 21st 2013 @ 1:48pm
jameswm said | January 21st 2013 @ 1:48pm | Report comment
Yeah science was on both sides.
As for the truth, meh, maybe about 70% of it was the truth. Seriously, will this guy ever learn?
January 21st 2013 @ 2:26pm
Beardan said | January 21st 2013 @ 2:26pm | Report comment
Pretty sure you will find it was Armstrong who was saying ‘yes’ to the questions in regards to the truth.
January 21st 2013 @ 5:36pm
jameswm said | January 21st 2013 @ 5:36pm | Report comment
He said yes to about the first 4 questions. After that, it was muddled and non-admissions. He even claimed he’s been clean since 2005, when USADA said his blood passport testing in 2009 said there’s less than a 1 in a million chance he was clean then.
Even you conceded he didn’t say the total truth.
January 21st 2013 @ 6:50pm
Rath said | January 21st 2013 @ 6:50pm | Report comment
You’ve made the distinction between science and scientists and yet still manage to conflate them in failing to make a good point.
Science is not perfect but it is far and away the best instrument humanity possesses in pursuing truth. Armstrong was forced into truth by people with science on their side.
January 21st 2013 @ 9:20pm
Beardan said | January 21st 2013 @ 9:20pm | Report comment
Can we leave the boring ‘science is my hero’ cliche’s to someone from NASA. If Science was so unbelievable why did he pass 500 drug tests? See how good Science went in those 500 drug tests.
January 21st 2013 @ 9:35pm
Rath said | January 21st 2013 @ 9:35pm | Report comment
Beardan,
Your response is anything but boring!
“See how good Science went in those 500 drug test”
What does this sentence mean?
Cheers,
Rath
January 22nd 2013 @ 1:01am
Beardan said | January 22nd 2013 @ 1:01am | Report comment
let me keep it simple for you. You see, Armstrong had 500 drug tests, and he passed all of them. All of them. 100%. How did Science go then? I’m starting to think you are out of your depth here Rathbone.
January 22nd 2013 @ 6:55am
Rath said | January 22nd 2013 @ 6:55am | Report comment
Beardan,
If keeping it ‘simple’ means getting it dead wrong you’ve certainly done that. LA had roughly 275 drug tests in his career, not 500.
Before there was a test for EPO there was little chance that LA could have returned a positive for any of his tests. Then it’s likely that either the drugs were out of his system before the in competition testing or he used a masking agent, we just can’t know.
The point is that the testing protocols evolved so that his blood samples did test positive.
When you present science or scientists with a problem it’s not reasonable to think they can solve it immediately, science is not perfect, it’s a process. That said, without good evidence enabling those people pursuing the truth about LA the world would have a very different view of the man today.
January 22nd 2013 @ 10:18am
jameswm said | January 22nd 2013 @ 10:18am | Report comment
Armstrong did not pass all of them. weren’t you watching the interview? He tested positive for a corticosteroid in 1999, and a doctor backdated a prescription to cover it up. He admitted that I think.
There was also a tour de Suisse one in 2001 – jury’s out on that, but who believes him?
So the “I never tested positive” line, which Lance is still peddling, is plain wrong. He’s still lying.
January 22nd 2013 @ 11:54pm
Steve said | January 22nd 2013 @ 11:54pm | Report comment
Looks like Rathbone wasn’t out his depth after all!
January 23rd 2013 @ 12:19am
Beardan said | January 23rd 2013 @ 12:19am | Report comment
Where did you magically pluck the 275 number from? According to what ive read and what the voice of cycling Phil Liggett said on sky sports radio, it was 500. So producing magical numbers that are incorrect isnt helping your argument.
Anyway lets for your sake the magical number of 275 is correct. Passing 275 drug tests when you are up to your eye balls in it isnt exactly a great achievement for Science, but at least they tried. Bit like your good self.
January 23rd 2013 @ 6:49am
Steve said | January 23rd 2013 @ 6:49am | Report comment
Still ignoring the fact he failed one then?
January 25th 2013 @ 10:01am
stillmatic1 said | January 25th 2013 @ 10:01am | Report comment
so a guy has never failed a breath analysis test and then found that test to be wrong, steve? i would say rathbone and his love of science took a bit of a hit. if we assume (correctly) that science is always trying to find a better answer then we must also assume that society will get over this obsession of what is an illegal drug and what isnt. im sure rathbone has used some sort of drug to help his recovery that years ago wasnt legal. to say a drug is legal or illegal is a ridiculous position to have, and hardly shows someone to be enlightened. what is a worse drug? alcohol or an EPO? cigarette or an EPO? oh, but they get a pass because EPO’s arent taxed by governments and generate revenue?
this isnt about science, its about people moralising over what are acceptable drugs and which are not. we have 2 drugs that do so much more damage than those taken by sportsmen and yet the enlightened amongst us attack the sportsmen?? get a grip people, he took drugs to help him ride a bike!!
January 21st 2013 @ 2:23pm
hammertime said | January 21st 2013 @ 2:23pm | Report comment
Nice one Rath. I for one doubt he is truly sorry because as they say, a leper never changes his spots.
January 22nd 2013 @ 3:26pm
simmo green said | January 22nd 2013 @ 3:26pm | Report comment
A leper’s spots may never change completely, but the dermis can thicken quite significantly
January 21st 2013 @ 2:32pm
sittingbison said | January 21st 2013 @ 2:32pm | Report comment
disregarding Lance and the interview, I would like to say chapeau! to Rath for contributing an article in a completely different sport to his own. Great effort mate and I hope to see more, as Zac says its what makes the Roar special.
The first 5 minutes was gripping, riveting and captivating. Waiting to see what he would say to the Yes or No answers was fantastic, as was his confession. The remaining 2hours 25 mins was oddly quite boring drivel – lies, deceit, obfuscation all carefully stage managed by Lances PR and lawyers. Oprah was completely out of her depth, unable to follow up questions or to lance the more blatant and obvious lies. I think she was staggered by the level of his duplicity, creeped out by exposure to his true sociopathic nature. She was painstakingly nervous in the prior interviews.
Whatever Lances objectives for going on Oprah instead of fronting a sworn deposition at USADA, he failed dismally. He is exposed to the entire world as a lying cheating vicious scumbag entirely without remorse or empathy, losing any last vestiges of general public support. He has also alienated the cycling and triathlon community and those offices of USADA and WADA necessary to reduce his life ban – mot a hope in the world will they even consider it now after he maintained lies and refused to enumerate. As Betsy said on AC360, if he couldn’t admit to the hospital room confession, nobody could believe any of what he said.
FYI a few of the blatant lies (but not all): never failed a test. stopped doping in 2005, hospital room confession, his “cocktail” ingredients, taking hardly any EPO, not being the owner of USPS (via Tailwind), not visiting Lausanne Lab, making “donation” after retiring in 2005, sophistication of USPA program, a conservative and safe program, Dr Ferrai not being mastermind, no special access to UCI, not forcing team mates to dope, denied firing teammates for refusing, not doping in comeback2.0, not recalling suing Emma, didnt call Betsy “fat”.
These were all part of the evidence in the reasoned decision with multiple accounts, or extremely well documented over a long period of time.
January 21st 2013 @ 2:46pm
bennalong said | January 21st 2013 @ 2:46pm | Report comment
A well written and intelligent piece, Rhino.
As someone who could be your dad I have to take issue with the idea that he deserves smpathy.
The story is a classic tragedy in that the greatest tragedy involves the greatest falls from grace.
Armstrong was no doubt prevented from confession in part by the effect on the legend he’d become.
But he failed when the opportunity arose to come clean, to repent if you will.
It’s a sad story, but he’s an amoral man and rather than follow the modern psychological philosophy that we’re prisoner to our neurotransmitters I believe he remained responsible for his choices
He has not taken responsibility like a man. A sociopath indeed and I despise his cheating.
January 21st 2013 @ 6:54pm
Rath said | January 21st 2013 @ 6:54pm | Report comment
How is it that Armstrong does not deserve sympathy? Can you claim any credit for not possessing the type of mind that produces the actions for which Armstrong is now infamous? The fact is you cannot. Your choices in life are largely a construct of factors over which you have no control. You did not choose your genetics any more than you chose your childhood and yet these factors play a major role in the consciousness from which your decisions arise.
January 23rd 2013 @ 9:18am
Pot Stirrer said | January 23rd 2013 @ 9:18am | Report comment
Your showing your gen y charecterisitcs now Rath. Or uv been listening to to many sports pshycologists. You can balme or justify anything on some event or set of events all you like but its still a choice and unless your certified you still make your own decisions. And yes i can claim a mind that would not be capable of doing what LA did. I know u not thinking like that but what your suggesting is that you would then have to have Sympathy for someone like Ivan Milat aswell ? Just becuase its only sport and he set up a charity to protect himself doesnt make it any less serious than any other criminal offence.
January 23rd 2013 @ 2:23pm
Rath said | January 23rd 2013 @ 2:23pm | Report comment
Pot Stirrer,
I’ll think you’ll find that you don’t get to choose to choose what you choose.
“And yes i can claim a mind that would not be capable of doing what LA did.”
That’s not the point at all, what I said was:
“Can you claim any credit for not possessing the type of mind that produces the actions for which Armstrong is now infamous?”
Clearly you cannot. It’s for this reason that of course people like Ivan Milat deserve sympathy, however counter intuitive it might seem.
As we begin to understand the brain I’ve no doubt that our thinking with regards to incarceration, punishment and accountability will undergo a paradigm shift, in fact this is already (slowly) happening.
Would your views regarding Ivan Milat change if you discovered he had/has a brain tumour which directly influenced his actions? If yes, ask yourself why.
January 23rd 2013 @ 3:25pm
Pot Stirrer said | January 23rd 2013 @ 3:25pm | Report comment
Rath i think thats crap. If your intelligent you know right from wrong. Many people have had bad thoughts and not acted upon them.
” you are not your thoughts”
As for
“Can you claim any credit for not possessing the type of mind that produces the actions for which Armstrong is now infamous?”
Absolutley i can. Buy having will power, a sense of whats right and wrong. Have you never not had a thought to do something illegal but didnt becuase you had been tuaght right from wrong?
As for Ivan Milat i would not feel sympathy for him under any circumstances id blame people like psychologists for knowing he had a mind capable of what he did and did nothing about it. Much like the people who give parole to people who re offend. Clearly they were wrong about their assesment and yet its someone else who pays the price for that error.
January 24th 2013 @ 10:17pm
Rath said | January 24th 2013 @ 10:17pm | Report comment
PS,
We’re going to have to agree to disagree on this. It’s obvious to me that free will is an illusion. It’s clear that we can’t select the things which determine our behaviour. You may very well be able to determine right from wrong but you played no part in your ability to do so. From this perspective can you see the logical problem? Where is the so called freedom of ‘free will’?
Once you see people’s actions (good and bad) as functions of factors beyond their control one cannot maintain a conventional way of thinking with regards to accountability.
Most people find it too difficult or disconcerting to consider that their choices are constructed of causes over which they had no control.
The problem of course is that it’s so bloody obvious
January 25th 2013 @ 8:50am
Pot Stirrer said | January 25th 2013 @ 8:50am | Report comment
Rath, So what you are basically saying is the brains our for fathers had are the brains we have. They are incapable of developing any further. If LA had a brother in Cycling you must then be of the position that he would be cheating aswell just because his brother did becuase as you say he had no choice . I understand your view that it has to be his genetics that are the root cause for his behaviour. But that does consider that he is not the spawn of
1 parent but 2 original parents who by having children create new and original thought patterns and not prone to having predetermined thoughts becuase they are not clones.
January 24th 2013 @ 10:29pm
Beardan said | January 24th 2013 @ 10:29pm | Report comment
you have really lost the plot havent you Rathbone.
January 21st 2013 @ 4:12pm
Lee Rodgers said | January 21st 2013 @ 4:12pm | Report comment
Have to say I found it strangely anesthetizing. It was so devoid of emotion and even intelligence, Oprah about as sharp in her questioning as a wet sponge, Lance acting all the way through, still believing he can fool people. I had much more fun watching Betsy Andreu’s reaction on the US news later, she was genuinely furious, honestly emotional.
And seriously, legalize all PEDs? At what point then does a patent get their talented youngster on the EPO? 12? 14? If that is the future if the sport, I’ll take up jigsaws…
January 21st 2013 @ 5:39pm
jameswm said | January 21st 2013 @ 5:39pm | Report comment
I like that last paragraph Lee. “Over-ambitious parents” and “kids” are the answer to the question “Why not legalise PEDs?”
January 21st 2013 @ 6:27pm
sittingbison said | January 21st 2013 @ 6:27pm | Report comment
Betsy nailed his hide to the barn door again Lee, she is a veritable anit-Lance missile lol. It is fascinating to compere the two, I have spoken to some court reporters that said this is often what its like trying to tell who is telling the truth, it becomes as plain as day when they are side by side like this.
January 22nd 2013 @ 1:37am
Lee Rodgers said | January 22nd 2013 @ 1:37am | Report comment
i agree, and we saw that both produced tears, but in one case they were literally ‘produced’…! good article Clyde, you certainly stirred the hornet’s nest!