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.
stillmatic1
Guest
so drink driving is a white lie? what about speeding? going through a red light? stabbing a co-worker in the back to get ahead? we all systematically and consistantly lie every day, white lies or not. fact is, he didnt actually harm anybody, nor could have (speeding etc can) my issue is over the moralising over something that will clearly change in due time. caffeine is also a stimulant, justin2, should this be outlawed? if a few are taking it, but most are not, would this be cheating? i mean, its only caffeine, right? to me, it is clear that we will be saying "its only an EPO/PED", in a few years time when society catches up to what technology is available. it is certainly an ideological argument, i grant you. drugs are a legislative issue and then become accepted or not by society at large. why should we be so against PEDs but not against tobacco/alcohol? because PED is manufactured in a lab? because alcohol/tobacco have thousands of years of acceptance and use? i thought we were supposed to be the enlightened generation? but we fail to look at our own history and learn from it. we advocate many drugs to help athletes recover and then refuse to acknowledge that this allows an unfair advantage over others!!
Toa
Guest
Totally agree will Stillmatic1, multinational companies suffocate, manipulate & bully competitors to the point of winning a contract, in fact its been happening on all levels since Adam & Eve. The Oprah interview wasn't meant to be a royal commission, she's not there to interrogate LA nor is she an investigative reporter. The nature of the interview was simple & that was "tell us both your side of the story & excuse ". Regardless of the situation LA defence mechanisms are that of any other person or organisation that views their business/ territory/ network is under threat. When a criminal is cornered the denial rate intensifies their demons implode & they become cold LA attitude was exactly that. Right up to Oprah there's one common denominator in all of this, its the influence of the "Power to win at all cost" He's not alone when he claims his personality is flawed, it depends who's holding the moral compass & which direction that person/organisation is pointing to. Like many dictators, corrupt politicians, unlawful underground syndicates, your common rouge traders & petty cheats from all angles that were there before him will well & truly be there after him. The world as we know it is not all that big, criminals & cheats will eventually be caught, depending on the severity some will go through public humiliation others will be address with a stern warning & moved on.
Justin2
Guest
Still - I find it staggering you would compare a few "white lies" from joe public to what this bloke did. I hope to see the bloke in orange rather than yellow soon. Any athlete who takes drugs should be hit with fraud charges, made to repay prize money plus interest. No hiding assets in other names etc, it all gets frozen unless it can be proven it was earned somehow else.
Skippy
Guest
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.” Instalment 2 , almost provided Nicole with her prediction . Lance would do well to read her retirement statement: http://www.nicolecooke.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=section&layout=blog&id=1&Itemid=18 With living in Austria , the Oprah event was at 0200gmt , thus i slept and watched the News Networks , read Fatcyclist and read BBC transcripts , listed below: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/21065539 http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/21072708 Paul Kimmage tweeted Lance offering an Airline seat to the " UCIIC Inquiry " ! When Lance reveals , ALL those involved in the Team Financing & Supplying of PED Products , then , and ONLY then , can people feel as though he is making an effort , for anyone else . SO far it is about Lance , lets not forget , that Mike Ashenden has shown , in a variety of articles that the 2009 comeback , raises questions . If he was allowed an 8year suspension , the comeback from end of 2005 TDF , allows him to compete in August 2013 ! No wonder he is emphatic , that he was clean in 2009 ! Oh yes , there are problems , since he has been joined at the hip with Johann , since 1998 , in ALL his Cycling endeavours
stillmatic1
Guest
agree that its not just about drugs. and as stated i agree that many people have cause to sue for defamation etc. the whole uproar seems to be the typical faux outrage that we indulge in in order to occupy our time. in a weeks time im sure campo or alan jones will say something stupid about some fringe group and people will move onto that. he took drugs. is paying a price well after the fact, so let the issue lie where it is. he is not the first, nor will be the last, so i would suggest we look at ourselves before lighting the torches against someone who we put onto a pedestal.
dasilva
Guest
Cocaine is only banned when taken in competition. So only if cocaine and other stimulants during the match is it banned So Bosnich was certainly guilty and so was Agassi and so was maradona of having stimulants still left in hteir system during a match (they probably took it the night before and the body hasn't cleared the drug yet). However there is no evidence that Andrew Johns or Ben Cousins was on stimulants during the actual match. Them taking it after the match partying may be illegal to the law but legal to doping code
dasilva
Guest
No, the evidence is that testosterone are linked to prostate cancer not testicular cancer. Steroids are linked to prostate and liver cancer. HGH links to colorectal cancer but not testicular cancer. EPO doesn't cause cancer but it can exacerbate tumours already present. HOwever EPO can be used to manage the side effects of cancer patients (a lot of chemo drugs cause anaemia) because the benefits of treating anaemia outweighs the risk of exacerbating cancer, Armstrong legally took EPO therapeutically during his cancer therapy (irony is that most treatment for cancer have a side effect of causing different types of cancer) It would have been a nice poetic link if his PEDs led to his cancer but the links hasn't been establish yet. Although it does say something that Armstrong took drugs that are potentially carcinogenic (even if it isn't link to testicular cancer) after his fight with cancer.
ScottWoodward.me
Roar Guru
peeeko, bob My point was that the money he has raised for cancer victims out weighs a bike race. Anyway, lets not define doping. Doping is doping and it is against the rules, and from a cocaine point of view, it is certainly performance enhancing.
Lee Rodgers
Expert
there's quite a chunk of evidence that links the PEDs he took before he got his illness, to cancer... would never wish it on anyone, and fantastic that he survived, but the link has been established.
Hansie
Guest
Interesting take. We'll have to 'watch this space' for a while on the hospital story.
Titus
Guest
So true Bob.......drugs don't really help you in sports where you need to be skillful,only hard work and dedication will. They are mainly of benefit in sports where you need to be bigger, faster or have more endurance. I guess drugs would help wih speed and endurance and as the worlds most competitive and well paid sport, you would have to think some people look for advantage.
Bob Anderson
Guest
Yeah, why would a soccer player need performance enhancing drugs just to jog around kicking a ball.
dasilva
Guest
The issue isn't just that he took drugs. It's the fact that he bullied people who witness him take drugs. That he sue people for defamation for accusing him for taking PED knowing that he did take PED and knowing that they witness him either admitting taking PED or witness him in the act. It was the fact that he tried to bully people who are willing to testify against him was the issue. Let say this if a person gets caught red handed for any small offence but then tries to bully people who caught them from speaking out, that goes way beyond the normal lapse in morality I'm actually open minded to the liberalisation of PED sports but until the rules are change, armstrong still had the unfair advantage.
peeeko
Roar Guru
Scott, i dont know if all those people you named were dopers - recreational drugs in a lot of cases
stillmatic1
Guest
i have no real feeling towards what lance is or has done but i find the moral high ground that most people are taking is a bit rich. so nobody ever lied before? but lance was a cyclist so he must be different? nobody ever broke the law before and denied it when caught? none of you speed, have 1 too many drinks and then drive, cheat on your taxes, belittle co workers, and on it goes? the guy doped to win a cycling race, whilst a high proportion of his competitors did the same. what are you all so upset about? people lie constantly and deliberately every single day, but lets hang the sportsman? people will have cause to sue for defamation, just like anyone else can in any community, but he didnt actually seem to break any laws re: doping. sportsmen have always tried to find ways to make themselves better, and frankly, drugs will always be apart of the deal. just like better equipment, nutrition, conditioning et al. look forward into what is most likely to happen and we will likely see drugs be a legal part of the repertoire of professional athletes. it is entertainment after all. people with more time than me could probably list the "legal" drugs that are allowed, that 10 years ago, werent allowed!! the middle class obsession with the eradication of drugs is doomed to failure, simply due to the fact that all levels of power are on some kind of juice themselves. did he hurt anyone with his own drug taking? no, but he did put a few people out of business and they have a case to receive damages. but beyond this, what exactly has he done that is of concern to you all? and please dont be so naive to claim it was the lying, or the breaking of some cycling mandates. none of that concerns any of us. he doesnt owe us an apology or need our forgiveness, anymore than what we owe him. if you saw him race and enjoyed it at the time, then you cant really claim that his drug taking destroys the memory. its all apart of history. let the guy move on and get on with his life. we all push our own agendas and the mandated limits of our professions in order to be successful and drugs are part of the limits for sportspeople. is he more at fault because he is in the public eye? a sportsmen? successful? oprah was never going to get the meat of the story, and why should he give it? as sheek says above, they all are getting something out of it. some will be good and some bad, but we will lap it all up and then move on in a week or so. cycling will sort itself out, with or without drugs, and a new hero will be crowned. who will have the next story to tell to keep us all entertained?
Hoy
Roar Guru
What I have never understoon in all of this is that this is supposedly "the most sophisticated doping system etc etc". But by all reports from witnesses, it was sloppy as!!! Why would he talk to his Dr in front of people, and admit in front of them that he had doped? I mean, how many people were in that room? Second, I think it was the physio saying there were needles everywhere in his room? Hardly the actions of a mastermind... It was all just so... sloppy. I can't see any sophistication anywhere.
ScottWoodward.me
Roar Guru
I'm a bit with Jack Osborne here. I didnt know that much about Lance Armstrong or even Cycling until I read his book and I have purchased it for every cancer sufferer I have known since. It was an amazing feat to literally lift yourself from a death bed with a priest giving the last rights. Surely this story and the inspiration that it has given thousands of people is much more important than a bike race, not to mention the money raised for suffers. With so many of our well known champions like Mats Wilander, Michelle Smith (Michelle de Bruin), Wendell Sailor, Michael Phelps, Diego Maradona, Andrew Johns, Ben Cousins, Mark Bosnich and Andre Agassi tainted as dopers maybe it should legal then we can judge everyone on a level playing field. Ah, only kidding.
dasilva
Guest
The doctor is bound by doctor-patient confidentiality and he is not going to go public on it (you can only break it for a court order or if remain confidentiality is a risk to public health of other people (such as a person with HIV refusing to tell his wife)) especially when what Armstrong was doing wasn't illegal. It broke the rules of sport but using PED isn't against the laws of USA and so it really doesn't matter where that doctor is.
Lee Rodgers
Expert
Reaction to the interview from Nicole Cook: 'It is a pantomime to me. Lance Armstrong should have been taken to a court, not to an Oprah Winfrey sofa.' 'He admitted to taking drugs but he hasn't totally uncovered exactly what was going on and he didn't want to get into naming names. 'There's still also the question of how deep was that corruption around Lance Armstrong, that supported him and enabled him to get through the testing. There are still so many questions that need to be asked and answered.' 'If he was trying to convince himself by arguments like that [those used in the confession], he's got no morals - he is a disgusting human being.' Reaction from Betsy Andreu: 'The hospital is where it all started. He's going to infuriate people who know the truth. He's still protecting people who are close to him.' 'He was co-owner of the team, decided who was hired, fired, who got paid what. He was cosying up to politicians, the governing bodies. It's completely disingenuous and a way of distancing himself of being the leader.' 'He could have come clean, he owed it to me, he owed it to the sport that he destroyed. The hospital is where it all started. If he wants a shot of redemption here, he's dropping the ball.' Reaction from Jack Osborne (yes, that Jack Osborne): 'Honestly I don’t care that Lance doped. He gave people hope and that’s more important then anything. So what if he lied. #livestrong' From WADA President John Fahey: 'If he was looking for redemption, he didn't succeed in getting that.' Thank Eddy Jack Osborne has no position within the UCI! I'd say on the whole, LA convinced very, very few...
Bondy
Guest
I agree with most elements spiro, one thing I noticed is gee he's aged considerably , the healing redemption movement will lap this tac up, the yes and no questions were stupid as armstrong more or less noted at the end of them. The betsy andreu moment was probably the most awkward of the interwiew where it couldnt be explained and lashed out at the andrue's with law suits for good luck an amazingly cold and callus act,the charade had to be continued. Do you ever think of the doctor who he told at the time in that room all that time ago that he was shovelling all that gear ,I wonder where that doctor is now?...