SPIRO: Oprah and Lance get the feel-good interview they wanted

Spiro Zavos Columnist

By Spiro Zavos, Spiro Zavos is a Roar Expert

Tagged:
 , ,

34 Have your say

    Lance Armstrong: The Oprah Interview (Image: Supplied)

    Related coverage

    The first part of the Oprah Winfrey interview with Lance Armstrong has provided the inevitable outcome.

    Winfrey gets the redemption type of interview for which she is famous (or infamous if she is seen in the context of trying to be a reporter).

    Lance Armstrong gets to acknowledge that he was a drug cheat while keeping to a minimum any revelations that might be used against him in the inevitable court cases that are going to flow from his scandalous behaviour, on and off the competitive cycling arena.

    This is why people, or celebrities with back stories that are inglorious to say the least, are very happy to ‘open up’ to Oprah.

    She is not about getting the facts. She is all about getting the emotions. The most frequent phrase prefacing her questions was: ‘How did you feel …’

    This is one of the most useless interrogative questions ever devised. There is nothing factual about its thrust.

    It is designed to force a jumping on the couch moment, or to give the interviewed celebrity a chance to emote expansively and impress Oprah’s huge fan base who are into inner healing and redemption by words rather than deeds.

    The interview started with a brisk Oprah asking about six or seven questions relating to whether Armstrong used the various illegal drug and doping techniques that he has previously denied.

    Tellingly, Oprah required Armstrong to answer Yes or No only to each of these questions. He answered Yes to all of them.

    But having got Armstrong’s concession that he was a doped up champion on his seven Tour de France victories, Oprah then went into Oprah mode and began the ‘How did you feel …?’ routine.

    Armstrong was allowed to deny that he was doped up in the 2009 and 2010 Tour de France events, despite the fact that tests suggested that there was only a one in a million chances that he wasn’t.

    Betsy Andreu, the feisty wife of Armstrong’s former team-mate Frankie Andreu, testified that in 1996 Armstrong told doctors treating his cancer that he had been ingesting performance-enhancing drugs. Armstrong, according to Andreu, told them he’d used doping agents. Armstrong called her testimony ‘vindictive, bitter, vengeful and jealous.’

    Andreu told ESPN a couple of days ago: ‘I would like for him to come out and admit the hospital incident did happen.’

    Armstrong was allowed by Oprah to deny by avoidance that the hospital incident did happen. He wasn’t asked why Andreu would make such an incident up. And in the light of his (Armstrong’s) confession that he was a serial dope-taker that he should acknowledge that the incident wasn’t an invention.

    And worse than this, Oprah allowed Armstrong to justify his smearing reaction to Andreu’s accusation by insisting that he never called her ‘fat.’

    During the various Rugby World Cup tournaments I have come across the Sunday Times chief sportswriter, David Walsh. He is an outstanding sports writer, one of the best in the world. Walsh has written extensively about Armstrong as a doped up cyclist. Armstrong successfully sued his paper and was awarded $500,000.

    The Sunday Times is now in the process of trying to reclaim these damages payouts. I hope (and I should state that, in theory, I am opposed to the use of defamation as a way of punishing people for what they have said or have written) that Walsh, aided by the deep pockets of The Sunday Times, then take an action against Armstrong for malicious defamation.

    The point about Armstrong is that he has almost destroyed a great sport by his doping tactics during his Tour de France triumphs. If a champion dopes he forces everyone who wants to be a champion to dope.

    And the bullying tactics adopted by Armstrong to silence critics have worked to validated this doped-up approach to winning.

    Armstrong’s tactics made covering cycling with integrity almost impossible. Few journalists or even newspapers these days have the financial resources to counter a cashed-up celebrity/hero intent on destroying their careers if they tried to go too deeply into the reasons why that hero was a seven times Tour de France champion.

    The test of Armstrong’s newly-found disgust of his bullying and cheating behaviour will come when or if he is prepared to face journalists with a modicum of reporting integrity. Armstrong needs to reveal the facts of his behaviour and not some confected inner feelings of supposed guilt.

    He can start paying journalists like David Walsh a monetary compensation of at least double what he brazenly took from The Sunday Times, together with whatever token apology he care to make.

    This is a case where money – Armstrong’s money – will speak more loudly than any Oprah contrived confession.

    Spiro Zavos
    Spiro Zavos

    Spiro Zavos, a founding writer on The Roar, was long time editorial writer on the Sydney Morning Herald, where he started a rugby column that has run for nearly 30 years. Spiro has written 12 books: fiction, biography, politics and histories of Australian, New Zealand, British and South African rugby. He is regarded as one of the foremost writers on rugby throughout the world.

    The Socceroos' hopes of qualifying from the group stage at the World Cup are hanging by a thread after a 1-1 draw against Denmark. See how the match unfolded with our Australia vs Denmark match report, highlights and result.

    Have Your Say



    If not logged in, please enter your name and email before submitting your comment. Please review our comments policy before posting on the Roar.

    Oldest | Newest | Most Recent

    The Crowd Says (34)

    • January 18th 2013 @ 4:10pm
      Harry said | January 18th 2013 @ 4:10pm | ! Report

      Good article Spiro and the interview was unfortunately exactly as I feared it would be. Utter drivel. No tears today but suspect we’ll get them in part 2.
      Sincerely hope the Oprah strategy backfires.

    • Roar Pro

      January 18th 2013 @ 4:10pm
      Ned Balme said | January 18th 2013 @ 4:10pm | ! Report

      I’ve maintained this thought process in that anyone who files the argument of “But he raised so much money…

      If you build an empire (for good or bad) based on deception and vilifying and defaming people, you are not a good person..

      It’s a simple thought that I thought would be quite easy for people to abide by but apparently not.

      • January 18th 2013 @ 4:50pm
        hawker said | January 18th 2013 @ 4:50pm | ! Report

        Whether you’re a good or bad person the money raised still helped people in need.

        • January 18th 2013 @ 5:01pm
          Harry said | January 18th 2013 @ 5:01pm | ! Report

          Take the time to educate yourself fully on what LiveStrong. Doesn’t actually fund cancer research, just “raises awareness” and “helps improve lives” (to be fair I understand they do provide excellent, practically useful support and information to cancer sufferers who come to them, and a community of hope and support).

          It is also a fact that LiveStrong has been relentlessly used by Armstrong to promote his own personal busines interests and generate substantial personal income, and was of course a terrific shield for the now self-confessed lir and chet for many years.

          • Roar Pro

            January 18th 2013 @ 5:20pm
            Ned Balme said | January 18th 2013 @ 5:20pm | ! Report

            I didnt explain myself fully, the quotations purely represent such ignorance of those who presume that Lance Armstrong = Money straight to Cancer research whereas I know that both Livestrong is a means of psychologically helping those more so than medically but unfortunately I just cant comprehend the idea of the ends justifying the means when the individual is such an iconic figure whom now to plenty of young cyclists – nay of any age- are left to comprehend whether they even had a childhood idol.

            Also I can no longer watch Dodgeball, which may be the biggest crime here.

    • January 18th 2013 @ 4:27pm
      Acorn said | January 18th 2013 @ 4:27pm | ! Report

      he is by definition, a sociopath. he has ruined people’s lives, careers, reputation, et al. Just saying sorry isn’t enough. he sued people and publicly shamed them for telling the truth. How can you take that back? It’s an incredible situation of someone who so clearly didn’t give a sh__ about anyone else except for himself. How he can live with himself is beyond me.

    • January 18th 2013 @ 4:42pm
      BennO said | January 18th 2013 @ 4:42pm | ! Report

      It makes you question sport that’s for sure. I know his “achievements” are incredible to the point of practically standing alone but there are plenty of other athletes with incredible records. It’s a terrible thing that I subconsciously start to question them too.

      But to look on the bright side, with today’s performance we know the Aussie cricketers must be clean.

    • January 18th 2013 @ 4:45pm
      B. Richardson said | January 18th 2013 @ 4:45pm | ! Report

      Spiro, you pooched this one. Winfrey didn’t get facts, j’accuse? I call b.s. on that one. She got the facts on the record in the first two minutes. And contrary to your piffle, Armstrong did not redeem or atone himself — for anything — at all. What program were you watching? Check the reviews in the U.S. media – Armstrong is actually coming off *worse* from this interview than he was going into it, and they’re not seeing a contrite failed man so much as a vile narcissist-cum-psychopath. It’s hard to disagree with them. That was a lazy fart in a bag of a column. Again, what were you watching??

      • January 18th 2013 @ 7:48pm
        Darwin Stubbie said | January 18th 2013 @ 7:48pm | ! Report

        Dont you just the moral high ground position …. Fine if its without reproach however SZ is extremely selective in his own analysis of most of his favourite subjects … almost Oprah in style

        As for Armstrong I can’t help but feel for some anything less than him departing this world just won’t do … They loved the Tiger Woods implosion and now they’ve got another target …

    • January 18th 2013 @ 5:10pm
      Shrek said | January 18th 2013 @ 5:10pm | ! Report

      Great article. Whether Lance cries or not, though, quote of the week has to go to Nicole Cook: “When Lance “cries” on Oprah later this week and she passes him a tissue, spare a thought for all of those genuine people who walked away with no reward – just shattered dreams. Each one of them is worth a thousand Lances.”

    Explore:
    , ,