Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

Photo

Predict What Lance Armstrong Is Going to Admit on Oprah


  • Please log in to reply
77 replies to this topic

Poll: Predict What Lance Armstrong Will Say on Oprah (66 member(s) have cast votes)

I Did PEDs...

  1. All My Career (aka "The Full Canseco") (19 votes [28.79%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 28.79%

  2. At the End of My Career (aka "The Wally Joyner Excuse") (19 votes [28.79%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 28.79%

  3. Once or Twice (aka "The Andy Pettitte Excuse") (24 votes [36.36%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 36.36%

  4. I Never Did PEDs (4 votes [6.06%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 6.06%

In Order to Cover Up My PED Usage, I... (multiple choice)

  1. Bribed People (4 votes [5.33%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 5.33%

  2. Bought People's Silence (6 votes [8.00%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 8.00%

  3. Threatened People (5 votes [6.67%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 6.67%

  4. Never Bribed Anyone (14 votes [18.67%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 18.67%

  5. Oprah Is Too Gutless to Ask This Question (46 votes [61.33%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 61.33%

I Want to Apologize To... (multiple choice)

  1. The Fans (56 votes [52.34%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 52.34%

  2. My Teammates (29 votes [27.10%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 27.10%

  3. Greg Lemond (4 votes [3.74%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 3.74%

  4. I Got Nothing to Apologize For (11 votes [10.28%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 10.28%

  5. The US Postal Service/Taxpayers (3 votes [2.80%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 2.80%

  6. The Anti-Doping Authorities (4 votes [3.74%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 3.74%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Van Everyman


  • SoSH Member


  • 7,381 posts

Posted 12 January 2013 - 05:21 PM

This one is self-explanatory. It will be awesome to see how much he actually says and why he did what he did. At this point, I'd be surprised if Oprah pushes him on much, if anything.

Edited by Van Everyman, 13 January 2013 - 12:34 PM.


#2 terrynever


  • SoSH Member


  • 6,365 posts

Posted 12 January 2013 - 06:11 PM

More important for the Fat Lady, good ratings for her failing network. The show ain't over until Lance sings like a canary.

#3 reggiecleveland


  • sublime


  • 13,785 posts

Posted 12 January 2013 - 06:17 PM

I just wanted to win for the cancer kids but the French were cheating!! The French have never helped us ever especially in the revolutionary War it is important to remember their fleet did not swing the balance. FREEDOM FRIES!

#4 Pearl Wilson


  • SoSH Member


  • 6,101 posts

Posted 12 January 2013 - 06:24 PM

True confession. I have no idea how to find her show on my tv and I don't know if I'll be able to watch.

BUT - there needs to be a game thread.

Should we expect something like "I cannot comment due to pending legal action"?

He will apologize to fans because of charitable endeavors.

Edited by Pearl Wilson, 12 January 2013 - 06:32 PM.


#5 Nick Kaufman


  • protector of human kind from spoilers


  • 8,361 posts

Posted 12 January 2013 - 06:43 PM

Posted Image

#6 DukeSox


  • Rick Derris


  • 8,308 posts

Posted 12 January 2013 - 09:37 PM

David Walsh sounds like a dbag

#7 Blundatola

  • 160 posts

Posted 12 January 2013 - 09:48 PM

David Walsh sounds like a dbag


Given he's been covering Lance Armstrong, I'd say the phrase "it takes one to know one" would apply.

#8 BannedbyNYYFans.com

  • 3,134 posts

Posted 13 January 2013 - 12:54 AM

Lance: “Yeah I did some bad things. I took a steroid. Definitely do not condone that, at all, but there could be a lot worse things I could have been doing out there. I haven’t done a crime. So there’s worse things that I could have done."

Oprah: "Lance, what would have been worse?"

Lance: "Murdering someone."

The Johnny Damon Defense

#9 johnmd20


  • voice of soccer


  • 16,648 posts

Posted 13 January 2013 - 08:01 AM

David Walsh sounds like a dbag


I actually agree with this. Those questions suck, too.

#10 Rovin Romine

  • 2,953 posts

Posted 13 January 2013 - 08:55 AM

I actually agree with this. Those questions suck, too.


They're not so bad.

If Oprah does this well, she will:
a) establish a timeline of personal PED use, including details on what he used and why.
b) establish a timeline of helping/forcing the riders on his team to dope, including details of who (Ferrari) and how.
c) address all the people who he has specifically hurt through his lawsuits/intimidation tactics (Andreu, O'Rilley, LeMond, the Times, Landis, etc.)
d) address all the people he generally hurt (livestrong, cancer survivors, young riders in the sport generally encouraged to dope, etc.)
e) address what he gained from this ($, fame, livestrong, etc.)
f) address what he is prepared to do to compensate those he hurt (returning $, public apologies, PED awareness, etc.).
g) and, only really important in the context of "f", *why* he did what he did.

I think Oprah will hit A lightly, minimize the rest, and only really focus on G. Which outside the context of changing young rider's motivation to dope, is just an opportunity for personal excuses/apologies. It would also be nice if Oprah could do a bit before or after Armstrong with a couple of experts to debunk Armstrong BS, should there be any, such as claiming a drug was safe, a technique wasn't banned, etc.

So as far as the Time's Questions go, they address all of these points. Perhaps #2 and the last one are a bit off. Although I think #2 is more relevant if it asks, how Armstrong could adopt (and then sustain, year after year after year) a pattern of forcing his team riders to use illegal untested chemicals and medical techniques while *personally knowing* the possibly extreme health risks. (If Armstrong was using early, who's to say his cancer wasn't caused by, or helped along by his PED use?)

Given that he's denied/fought this for so long, and that it's so entrenched in his personality, I'm still a bit surprised that he's considering anything but continued denials. I personally suspect he will say something like:

a) Everyone was doing it
b) Once I started I realized how easy it was
c) No one forced anyone to do anything - it was part of the cycling culture
d) After I started I realized I couldn't back out or come clean without losing everything
e) That scared me and I continued, even though I often thought about backing out
f) After a while denials became a habit, especially when so many others (Ulrich) were using
g) I am sorry the culture of riding "forced" me into it, and sorry I perpetuated that culture, but the problem is bigger than me
h) I was unfairly targeted by the press because of my success/Americanness/criticism of the TDF
i) given that everyone was doping, I believe I would have won anyway - the doping helps, but not that much if everyone is doing it, it's just leveling the playing field.
j) the drugs/techniques I used were safe from a medical point of view, unlike some of the others
k) I fought as long as I did because I knew no one would give me any mercy, unlike other forgiven riders
l) the UCI was corrupt, complicit, and is the real villain here.

The HOF debates here are pretty good for generating excuses.

While a confession or partial confession puts Armstrong back in play, so to speak, a full denial on Oprah puts him in Pete Rose land - a handful of hardcore supports based largely in those who were personally invested in rooting for him.

#11 wade boggs chicken dinner


  • SoSH Member


  • 6,820 posts

Posted 13 January 2013 - 10:48 AM

a) Everyone was doing it
b) Once I started I realized how easy it was
c) No one forced anyone to do anything - it was part of the cycling culture
d) After I started I realized I couldn't back out or come clean without losing everything
e) That scared me and I continued, even though I often thought about backing out
f) After a while denials became a habit, especially when so many others (Ulrich) were using
g) I am sorry the culture of riding "forced" me into it, and sorry I perpetuated that culture, but the problem is bigger than me
h) I was unfairly targeted by the press because of my success/Americanness/criticism of the TDF
i) given that everyone was doping, I believe I would have won anyway - the doping helps, but not that much if everyone is doing it, it's just leveling the playing field.
j) the drugs/techniques I used were safe from a medical point of view, unlike some of the others
k) I fought as long as I did because I knew no one would give me any mercy, unlike other forgiven riders
l) the UCI was corrupt, complicit, and is the real villain here.

Good post. I'm sure Lance will also ask whether any of the other riders who have been stripped of their titles have been asked to give the prize money back.

From a PR perspective, I think the game plan would be to have Lance admit early and often to some steroid use (without going into specifics) and then start harping on (h) and (i). Reciting the list from the other thread about who has been found to have used steroids wouldn't hurt.

With regard to "I would have won anyway," it would be great if Oprah asked how Lance can be so sure of that - maybe he just had a better doping scheme than everyone else.

#12 twothousandone

  • 2,899 posts

Posted 14 January 2013 - 02:39 PM

True confession. I have no idea how to find her show on my tv and I don't know if I'll be able to watch.


I think I just read somewhere (but can't find it now) that Discover Channel is picking it up. You'll get the highlights on YouTube or the news, though.

http://online.wsj.co...1090784576.html

As the ESPN writer Don Van Natta Jr. posted on Twitter, "You don't go on Oprah to confess. You go on Oprah to be forgiven."



I thunk I also read it is supposed to be a 90 minute interview, but I don't know if that means Oprah gets 90 minutes, or it'll be edited down to 90 minutes.

I have to think that Oprah, who has lot a lot of relevance in the last two years (am I right on that?) wants this to kick-start her replacement of Barbara Walters for this kind of stuff. If it works, Paule Broadwell is next. But to make it work, she can't be a complete patsy. She has to push Armstrong enough that the "public" thinks she didn't let him just recite the typical apology phrases.

She HAS TO mention Floyd Landis in a difficult context that makes him respond. She HAS TO ask him about lying under oath and suing people for reporting/making statements that were the truth (the Times suit would fit that bill). She PROBABLY will mention Frankie/Betsy Andreu, but I can't imagine she's good enough at this to really hold his feet to the fire on that. She probably will soft pedal the "you say you were inspiring cancer patients, but what do you say to them now that you are admitting to lying" so much that Lance hits it out of the park (as his advisers are preparing him to do.)

I'll think she mentions Sheryl Crow. I don't think there's any chance she takes one of his likely "you should ask them that" responses and hammers him with, "well, we did ask them that, but we also asked Floyd/Tyler/Levi/Jan/ Travis/Greg and here's a clip of what they said to us on camera. " But if Betsy Andreu actually shows up in person, I will order her network, or find an Oprah charity to support. She can't do it and get anyone else to come on her show, but it would fit the description of "no holds barred."

#13 teddykgb

  • 3,637 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 12:32 AM

I would like an option where he admits to doping only to come back from cancer, using his cancer as an excuse for the drug usage

#14 Average Reds


  • SoSH Member


  • 10,381 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 07:47 AM

I would like an option where he admits to doping only to come back from cancer, using his cancer as an excuse for the drug usage


Already taken - that was his claim with respect to the EPO usage that he is alleged to have admitted in front of Frankie Andreu and his wife.

#15 Average Reds


  • SoSH Member


  • 10,381 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 07:56 AM

Given that he's denied/fought this for so long, and that it's so entrenched in his personality, I'm still a bit surprised that he's considering anything but continued denials. I personally suspect he will say something like:

a) Everyone was doing it
b) Once I started I realized how easy it was
c) No one forced anyone to do anything - it was part of the cycling culture
d) After I started I realized I couldn't back out or come clean without losing everything
e) That scared me and I continued, even though I often thought about backing out
f) After a while denials became a habit, especially when so many others (Ulrich) were using
g) I am sorry the culture of riding "forced" me into it, and sorry I perpetuated that culture, but the problem is bigger than me
h) I was unfairly targeted by the press because of my success/Americanness/criticism of the TDF
i) given that everyone was doping, I believe I would have won anyway - the doping helps, but not that much if everyone is doing it, it's just leveling the playing field.
j) the drugs/techniques I used were safe from a medical point of view, unlike some of the others
k) I fought as long as I did because I knew no one would give me any mercy, unlike other forgiven riders
l) the UCI was corrupt, complicit, and is the real villain here.


Like you, I am somewhat dumbfounded that he's taking the confession route, because he faces nothing but downside (at least legally) for "coming clean" at this stage. Having said that, I will be astonished if what you have outlined is not the basis for what he says in the interview.

These points are the only possible explanation that might "play" with the public. (To the extent anyone cares about Lance Armstrong these days.) They also have the benefit of more than a little truth to them while allowing Armstrong to ignore what a vindictive a-hole he has been to everyone around him over the years.

#16 Orange Julia


  • kittens kitttens kittens kittens


  • 10,268 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 08:37 AM

Oprah was on CBS This Morning to talk about the interview and said that they aren't cutting the interview down at all, that it will carry over to a second night. Not sure if it is all that juicy or that if Oprah is hoping this solidifies her network a little better. Or both.

#17 Jordu

  • 2,029 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 05:57 PM

Watching various newscast these past couple of days, it is increasingly apparent that whatever Armstrong says is not going to be enough. (Winfrey said on CBS This Morning that Armstrong "did not come clean in the manner that I expected."

Everyone from NECN to CNN is running old clips of Armstrong's denials -- his angry, taunting, dismissive, foul-mouthed denials. When the news networks get the clips from Winfrey's show later thus week, they'll run them with his denials in their packages.

You can't get out of lying when your lies involved insulting the character and morality of anyone who questioned you.

#18 Nick Kaufman


  • protector of human kind from spoilers


  • 8,361 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 02:44 AM

Watching various newscast these past couple of days, it is increasingly apparent that whatever Armstrong says is not going to be enough. (Winfrey said on CBS This Morning that Armstrong "did not come clean in the manner that I expected."

Everyone from NECN to CNN is running old clips of Armstrong's denials -- his angry, taunting, dismissive, foul-mouthed denials. When the news networks get the clips from Winfrey's show later thus week, they'll run them with his denials in their packages.

You can't get out of lying when your lies involved insulting the character and morality of anyone who questioned you.


Yup. It was really brazen and shameful. This guy will have a load of bricks landing upon him.

#19 twothousandone

  • 2,899 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 11:38 AM

Can 60 minutes get Landis, Andreu, Lemond and Hamilton on camera, responding to Armstrong's interview, in time for Sunday's show? They've been pretty good at covering this, it would sure be timely, and they'll have the Pats game as a lead-in.

Of course, it's never really been their thing to be one voice among many on a topic, but if it generates ratings, I'm sure they'll consider it. As Jordu noted, everyone will match the Oprah interview with previous on camera statements and interviews. I'm looking forward to seeing one of the "I like our credibility" shots at Landis, juxtaposed against a denial and his Oprah confession.

#20 Orange Julia


  • kittens kitttens kittens kittens


  • 10,268 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 03:15 PM

Landis, Andreu, Lemond and Hamilton have not made a lot of friends in this process, whether they were in the right or not and if i was advising any of them, I would not recommend that they be on point on Sunday for a "I told you so" type deal.

#21 wutang112878


  • SoSH Member


  • 5,625 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 03:43 PM

You can't get out of lying when your lies involved insulting the character and morality of anyone who questioned you.


I dont think he cares about getting out of lying at the moment, I believe there is some potential legal ramifications if he came out and blatantly said certain things if it contradicted sworn testimony I believe he has given. This is just a big PR stunt by Lance, fun stuff.

#22 Myt1


  • thinks tim thomas is a dick-fil-a


  • 19,542 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 03:48 PM

"There is an idea of a Lance Armstrong; some kind of abstraction. But there is no real me: only an entity, something illusory. And though I can hide my cold gaze, and you can shake my hand and feel flesh gripping yours and maybe you can even sense our lifestyles are probably comparable... I simply am not there."

#23 Rovin Romine

  • 2,953 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 03:51 PM

The Times speculates he will speak out against (and possibly testify against) UCI officials and former Postal Team owners: http://www.nytimes.c...MR_AP_LO_MST_FB

Well, it makes much more sense to me now.

1) In the whistleblower suit, he'll argue the owners were complicit and the liability shouldn't fall on his head alone. (Perhaps also cut a deal to limit his liability). Depending on who he is willing to finger, he may also try to get them named as co-defendants in his other civil suits and so potentially reduce his liability in them.

2) He'll try to trade his UCI information for a reduction in his lifetime ban.

So I think that means "confessing" to personal PED use, but pointing the finger up the food chain without getting into specifics. Or rather, specifics of how he smuggled drugs, coerced others into using them, etc. He'll give up lots of details which go to his mitigation. Perhaps he'll even claim he was a victim.

Still a risky strategy. The weird thing is he might not actually a bad witness, *provided* once he "breaks" his denials, he becomes consistent in his testimony. My god though, I'd love to cross him on the stand; he's got massive bias, but also a solid "reason" for all of his prior denials.

Edited by Rovin Romine, 16 January 2013 - 03:51 PM.


#24 Nick Kaufman


  • protector of human kind from spoilers


  • 8,361 posts

Posted 17 January 2013 - 09:08 PM

Shorter Lance Armstrong: I doped, but it wasn't as bad as the East Germans! And hey, everyone did it!

#25 slamminsammya

  • 401 posts

Posted 17 January 2013 - 09:09 PM

I feel like this interview needs a game thread.

Armstrong describing things in terms of the "momentum" of a lie. This is amazing TV.

#26 Nick Kaufman


  • protector of human kind from spoilers


  • 8,361 posts

Posted 17 January 2013 - 09:10 PM

And people weren't pressured to dope.

#27 Nick Kaufman


  • protector of human kind from spoilers


  • 8,361 posts

Posted 17 January 2013 - 09:17 PM

At least he didn't cry. Yet.

#28 jk333

  • 1,780 posts

Posted 17 January 2013 - 09:18 PM

He says that he did not dope after his comeback. 2005 was the last time, supposedly. Its pretty hard to believe some of the stories since there are so many versions that are going around. That he denied it for so long is difficult and that the odds are reportedly 1 in a million, even tougher.

#29 Nick Kaufman


  • protector of human kind from spoilers


  • 8,361 posts

Posted 17 January 2013 - 09:22 PM

Omg. Lance denies that he would have anyone get fired because he refused to dope.

That man will only admit what he cannot afford to deny anymore.

#30 Van Everyman


  • SoSH Member


  • 7,381 posts

Posted 17 January 2013 - 09:24 PM

I don't quite understand why he'd say he didn't dope when he came back if it weren't true. Then again, dude is a serial liar.

#31 jk333

  • 1,780 posts

Posted 17 January 2013 - 09:24 PM

Omg. Lance denies that he would have anyone get fired because he refused to dope.

That man will only admit what he cannot afford to deny anymore.

I agree... he's not very convincing at all. I'm supposed to believe that other team members are making up lies about him now? Is he that much of an asshole that people are trying to sabotage him now?

More likely that he's lying.

I don't quite understand why he'd say he didn't dope when he came back if it weren't true. Then again, dude is a serial liar.

1 in a million chance, the testing agency said. Either his serum levels were so messed up by all his previous doping, he got very unlucky or he's a liar. We know he's a liar... And that's what I think happened.

Edited by jk333, 17 January 2013 - 09:28 PM.


#32 Nick Kaufman


  • protector of human kind from spoilers


  • 8,361 posts

Posted 17 January 2013 - 09:25 PM

I don't quite understand why he'd say he didn't dope when he came back if it weren't true. Then again, dude is a serial liar.


Well.. otoh, it makes sense if he didn't dope. He didn't have to. OTOH, if he did admit to doping, perhaps it would make it tougher to get cleared to participate in triathlon events.

#33 Nick Kaufman


  • protector of human kind from spoilers


  • 8,361 posts

Posted 17 January 2013 - 09:33 PM

He did not expect other teammates to dope. Tsk tsk tsk.

#34 twothousandone

  • 2,899 posts

Posted 17 January 2013 - 09:44 PM

I like Van de Velde's credibility.



He tried to destroy Betsy Andreu but he'll protect Ferrari. And Oprah let him.

#35 Rovin Romine

  • 2,953 posts

Posted 17 January 2013 - 09:46 PM

That man will only admit what he cannot afford to deny anymore.


Ting!

#36 Nick Kaufman


  • protector of human kind from spoilers


  • 8,361 posts

Posted 17 January 2013 - 09:47 PM

"feels scary to not think it was wrong to dope back then."

At least have the ball to say you don't feel it's wrong now!

#37 Van Everyman


  • SoSH Member


  • 7,381 posts

Posted 17 January 2013 - 09:51 PM

I still think this whole confession is about him being able to pay upwards of $100M or more to the government and all the other libel cases he's facing. There's a storm a comin'.

#38 adam42381

  • 1,896 posts

Posted 17 January 2013 - 09:51 PM

That teaser sounded like Oprah may push the pressure/suing issue some more. I hope she won't just let him off the hook.

#39 Rovin Romine

  • 2,953 posts

Posted 17 January 2013 - 09:53 PM

There's a lot of candor there, almost psychopathicly so, but at this posting time, Oprah has become bogged down in feelings, fame, etc. She's not really asking any tough questions yet, and Armstrong is carving out the minimum liability route (not naming names, how noble - snort) and hitting that route hard by accepting maximum personal responsibility. I haven't detected any questions (that she's pressed on) which are truly problematic for Armstrong yet.

#40 twothousandone

  • 2,899 posts

Posted 17 January 2013 - 09:54 PM

When mafia hit men turn, they have to bring everyone down. They don't get to protect the ones they think are "good men.

#41 twothousandone

  • 2,899 posts

Posted 17 January 2013 - 10:02 PM

Ï like Hamilton's credibility

#42 86spike


  • Currently enjoying "Arli$$"


  • 22,106 posts

Posted 17 January 2013 - 10:05 PM

"feels scary to not think it was wrong to dope back then."

At least have the ball to say you don't feel it's wrong now!


snicker

#43 Rovin Romine

  • 2,953 posts

Posted 17 January 2013 - 10:05 PM

Lots of time wasted on tests, etc. We know he cheated. . .

On O'Riley, et al. "a major flaw," "inexcusable" etc. But he won't actually come out and say, "I sued them without any grounds to do so - I tried to ruin their lives."

Trouble with this interview so far is that Oprah is letting him drop too many vague abstractions without getting him to admit what he specifically did. "I am sorry" is not the same as "I did everything I could to ruin X's life."

Part of me is actually impressed he's managed to say so little. But then Oprah is so caught up in the "why" she's neglecting the "how" and often the "what."

#44 Nick Kaufman


  • protector of human kind from spoilers


  • 8,361 posts

Posted 17 January 2013 - 10:11 PM

Lots of time wasted on tests, etc. We know he cheated. . .

On O'Riley, et al. "a major flaw," "inexcusable" etc. But he won't actually come out and say, "I sued them without any grounds to do so - I tried to ruin their lives."

Trouble with this interview so far is that Oprah is letting him drop too many vague abstractions without getting him to admit what he specifically did. "I am sorry" is not the same as "I did everything I could to ruin X's life."

Part of me is actually impressed he's managed to say so little. But then Oprah is so caught up in the "why" she's neglecting the "how" and often the "what."


The thing is that he cynically chose to make certain strategic decisions that harmed people's lives and because it's Oprah, he's presenting it as a sort of a vague flaw. And being cynical isn't a flaw per se, like eating too much. It's a character trait that perhaps someone can revisit and alter and fit it with other more positive traits, but this isn't something that's shown in this interview; if anything this interview confirms he's as cynical as ever.

#45 adam42381

  • 1,896 posts

Posted 17 January 2013 - 10:12 PM

God, I hate this prick even more now than I did before the interview started.

#46 Rovin Romine

  • 2,953 posts

Posted 17 January 2013 - 10:12 PM

Major wuss out on the Andreu question as to whether she was right about him using drugs prior to his cancer diagnosis. Armstrong didn't answer - but he already admitted using drugs pre cancer. Ophrah should have gone after that. Armstrong tried to make the "but I didn't call her fat" joke and Oprah wasn't going for it. She should have pushed him harder.

#47 twothousandone

  • 2,899 posts

Posted 17 January 2013 - 10:21 PM

She should have gone for the kill, but she's taking it easy on a fellow celebrity. If she's too tough, she won't get any other disgraced celebrities to show up.

#48 Rovin Romine

  • 2,953 posts

Posted 17 January 2013 - 10:21 PM

The thing is that he cynically chose to make certain strategic decisions that harmed people's lives and because it's Oprah, he's presenting it as a sort of a vague flaw. And being cynical isn't a flaw per se, like eating too much. It's a character trait that perhaps someone can revisit and alter and fit it with other more positive traits, but this isn't something that's shown in this interview; if anything this interview confirms he's as cynical as ever.


I understand what you're saying, but is "cynicism" what we're seeing? He really comes across as having no empathy at all.

#49 twothousandone

  • 2,899 posts

Posted 17 January 2013 - 10:26 PM

Since I fought and lost, if I had to do it over again, I'd do it differently, " That's a paraphrase.

You made your bed, slimeball, now try to sleep in it.

#50 Rovin Romine

  • 2,953 posts

Posted 17 January 2013 - 10:38 PM

The preview for the second half looks awful. Do I care what his mom or kids or sponsors think about him and/or how much he regrets it vis-a-vis those people? Not really.

I'd have loved to hear about LeMond, the mechanics of cheating (just confirm or deny things in the USADA report besides motoman), the basis for his various lawsuits, the witness intimidation, *why* he did it, and also why he finally chose to give in.

I was hopeful that Oprah would do a good interview, but I give this a 3 out of 10. Too many softballs, too many questions that were not followed up on.

At least she got him to admit pre-cancer drug use and his career cheating (stopping just before many standard statute of limitation issues?). But even there, I'd rather she ask why he dumped a bunch of drugs in his body post-cancer, or if he thought it was dangerous to do so.

Ah well.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users