The Interview, First Impressions

by Rant on January 17, 2013 · 14 comments

in Lance Armstrong

So about 60 percent of the Lance and Oprah show is done, with the remaining 40 percent to air tomorrow. I won’t get into deep analysis of the interview, as it’s getting a bit late in my neck of the woods. But here are my first impressions.

First, I’m not surprised that Armstrong admitted to doping. He’s been pretty much backed into a corner on that score. His reputation and career are a shambles. To even begin to rebuild his credibility, he had to go at least that far. But if you listen carefully, you’ll notice what he’s not saying, which is in some ways even more important than what he did say.

He’s not saying much about anyone else. Who enabled him? Was there a team policy — written or not — that encouraged or even demanded that riders on the Tour de France squads dope? Armstrong studiously avoided saying much about anyone else. Not much naming of names here.

Which means that so far, he’s following the standard “cyclist caught doping who now comes clean” playbook. Admit to doping. Claim it’s a personal failing and that it was your own decision. Never talk about the enablers, except when you’re forced to (like the questions about Dr. Ferrari tonight).

For as much coming clean as he did, I find it odd that he would admit to doping in 7 Tours de France, but not set the record straight about what happened in the Indiana University hospital room back in 1996/1997 when Betsy and Frankie Andreu overheard a conversation between Armstrong and a couple of unidentified doctors. But on reflection, I suspect the reason he ducked the question was pretty simple. Money. SCA, the insurance company that Armstrong tussled with over the bonus due for the 2004 Tour win (number 6), is looking to get their money back. If Armstrong corroborates Betsy’s recollections, he may lose $12 million or more. So there’s the reason. Or more to the point: twelve million reasons.

As far as these interviews go, Oprah seems prepared. Someone assembled some good research for her. And she has some tough questions for Lance. She’s tough, but she’s not the toughest interviewer. Oprah doesn’t have the wealth of knowledge and experience that a Bonnie D. Ford or Juliet Macur does, or a number of other cycling journalists, for that matter. She follows up at times, but she’s not as dogged in her questioning as a Mike Wallace or an Ed Bradley would be. So in that sense, it could be better.

I suspect for the average viewer — meaning someone who isn’t a cycling fan, and definitely not someone who is knowledgeable about doping in sports — Lance may actually come across as a flawed and sympathetic figure. And those are the people this interview is designed to appeal to. It’s the first stop on the celebrity rascals rehab tour (to recycle a phrase), and Armstrong is clearly trying to move forward and reclaim some of the limelight that he needs.

My impression, when I heard that he had called a number of people to apologize, was that he sounded like he’s in some 12-step program. Like Alcoholics Anonymous. Perhaps this one is Assholes Anonymous, given his reputation as a world-class jerk. And maybe what it takes to get to his level of success was being an that kind of person.

Oprah appears to have left the emotional stuff for tomorrow’s segment. The traditional crying on Oprah’s couch and begging for absolution. (Go ahead, call me a cynic.) This is the stuff that will tug at the heart strings of the average person — or at least, the average person who watches Oprah Winfrey Network. And this interview is a bit of a coup for her. It reminds people of Oprah the TV presenter and what she’s capable of. And it introduces a whole lot of people to OWN. People who wouldn’t have found it on their cable dial under other circumstances. No doubt, it will give her fledgling network a boost. Whether it’s enough to keep it going long-term may be a different story.

While this show may garner sympathy for Lance, one person who doesn’t appear to be buying it is Betsy Andreu. I happened to catch her on Anderson Cooper 360 (I saw some tweets that said she was on), and she still has some righteous indignation. As well she should. Lance did a whole lot to make Betsy and Frankie look bad, once the whole SCA case went down, and that cost Frankie professionally. More than that, it hit home by calling into question who they are as people. (And I can tell you first hand, Frankie is a stand-up guy.)

The way Armstrong talked about his recent phone conversation with Betsy and Frankie, and the way he ducked answering Oprah’s question about the hospital room scene obviously cut deep. By both Lance and Betsy’s telling, it will be a long, long time — if ever — before they will be on good terms.

At the end of AC 360, Betsy had the money quote. She observed that it’s impossible to believe that Lance’s doping didn’t have enablers who are currently going unnamed. Perhaps Oprah will press questions about the team structure and what team management knew during The Interview, Part 2. But I wouldn’t bet on it. I’m guessing it will be more about tugging heart strings than teasing out the truth about the team.

It’s a shame that Lance’s first interview goes to Oprah, in one sense. Armstrong hasn’t had an interrogator who’s really pushed back at him and kept at him to get an answer on questions. She follows up, but after one or two tries goes on to the next question. Betsy was right on AC 360 when she observed that Oprah could have just put it to him, “Yes or no, did you tell the doctors … ?”

So while this interview will confirm that yes, Lance Armstrong was a doper, it doesn’t go deeper and push for the whole story (at least, so far). What role did Thom Weisel play in all of this? Or Bill Stapleton? Or Johan Bruyneel? Or Hein Verbruggen? We know, based on other sources. But Lance is in a unique position to verify what we know, and so far he hasn’t done it. Will he do so in tomorrow’s segment? I don’t think so, but never say never.

This may be the start of Lance’s celebrity rascals rehab tour, but it will be some time before Armstrong achieves redemption. Assuming that is even possible. But it’s a start, and the only way from here is up, as far as all that goes.

To close on a personal note to Betsy (if she reads this), even though Lance ducked the question, it’s pretty apparent that what you and Frankie said you heard at the IU hospital is what passed between Lance and those doctors. For what it’s worth, I’m sorry I doubted you.

Millard Baker January 18, 2013 at 12:49 am

Why is naming the “enablers” so important? Taking personal responsibility for one’s action is one thing that should be expected. But when did snitching become a morally virtuous thing to do?

Jean C January 18, 2013 at 6:45 am

Hi,

On that interview, Lance seems to have no remorse of what he did. I cannot be disappointed by that because I expected him to stay as he is.
As usual, he lies about a lot of thing like his come-back, just confirming what cannot be denied.
So, that was neither a confession, nor apology, just a try to restore a bit of his image.
For the moment he as failed.

Rant January 18, 2013 at 7:09 am

Millard,

I’m not sure I’d say that it’s “morally virtuous” to be a snitch, because a person usually has to be involved in some shady behavior to be in a position to know.

Given the USADA documents suggest Armstrong was a key player in what they characterize as a conspiracy, I think he should have been more forthcoming about the “how” part of it all. (Though to be fair, Oprah didn’t really press him on that, either.) That would have involved mentioning other people, though. And he avoided doing that most of the time.

I understand why he kept silent, but I’ll leave that for a future post.

Jean,

I think you’re right, not much remorse in evidence, and this is just the opening round of Comeback 3.0.

Millard Baker January 18, 2013 at 7:43 am

Dan,

I find the response to Lance Armstrong’s doping far worse than the doping itself.

So many hypocritical expectations.

On the one hand sports journalists, particularly cycling “journalists”, and fans are upset that Armstrong attacked so many people for his own self-gain. Now, the same people expect him to continue to attack (snitch) other people for his own (redemption) self-gain.

Everyone criticized him for being dishonest about doping.

And now they want him to act like he is remorseful re:doping.

Do they really want honesty? Or do they want an act of remorse and contrition?

Doping is what elite athletes do. Do people want them to be honest about it? Or do they really just want them to promote the biggest deception of all i.e. cheerleading the romanticized notion of sports competition free of doping?

Rant January 18, 2013 at 8:03 am

Millard,

Agreed. Elite athletes dope. It’s been that way for a long, long time.

Your questions remind me of a scene in “A Few Good Men”:

Jack Nicholson: “You want answers?”

Tom Cruise: “I want the truth!”

Jack Nicholson: “You can’t handle the truth”

William Schart January 18, 2013 at 8:48 am

If Armstrong is hoping for some sort of deal from USADA etc., he may be holding back from naming names for some strategic reason. Naming names on Oprah won’t result in whatever names might be involved being sanctioned, nor would such naming hold much sway with the powers that be. On the other hand, there may not be all that many names to name that we don’t already know about. We know about Dr. Ferrari and Bruyneel. There’s that Weisel guy, maybe he’s involved in some way, but who knows that what extent? And if Amgen is somehow knowingly involved, I would not be sure how much Armstrong would know about that.

On the third hand (hey, if you dope so much, who knows what freaks might result) he simple may be following the standard “I’ll admit things, but I won’t name names” as Rant suggests.

On a different tack, if he is trying to improve his public image, it doesn’t seem to be working. Up until the confession, public comments on various stories and opinion pieces on places like ESPN.com were a mixed bag, with a number of “he was just doing what everybody else was doing” and even a few “he never tested positive” as well as the “I don’t care what he did in cycling, his anti-cancer efforts are good” comments. Now, the comments are by and large negative.

My personal opinion, he would be best served by dropping out if the public eye. Forget doing more interviews, forget ever getting back into competition or even doing things like riding organized centuries, and keep a low profile. Some day this will blow over and become ancient history. And if he does have any names to name, do so behind the scenes without any attempt for a quid pro quo.

Millard Baker January 18, 2013 at 8:59 am

William,

I can’t see it being effective at repairing his public image or protecting his financial bottom line. Surely, his lawyers strongly advised against the Oprah confessional.

The only motive seems to be a return to competition. For an extreme competitor, the worst punishment is a ban on competition. He may be willing to give up most of his fortune (he’ll still be a multi-millionaire many times over) if he thinks it will expedite his return.

Millard Baker January 18, 2013 at 9:04 am

Dan,

People don’t really want the truth – at least not the entire truth.

Only the truth that serves the purposes of self-interested parties (e.g. USADA) is required.

Remember, when an athlete was caught doping and all he had to do was confess and admit and then everyone moved on?

Now, there is an ever-evolving string of conditions and hoops that athletes are required to complete that is nothing short of a full-fledged religious conversion.

It started with the Dubin criteria for redemption post-Ben Johnson.

Now USADA/WADA don’t only demand admission and contrition for redemption. It must be done under oath too along with answers to any other questions they want to ask!

Given the exposure of the utter failure of their drug testing program, they need some way catch doped athletes. They are
pushing cooperation with law enforcement. But worse is their endorsement and promotion of a “snitch” culture. This will not stop the doping – but only make it more dangerous for its paritcipants.

William Schart January 18, 2013 at 11:18 am

I dislike the word “snitch”. Anyone who has knowledge of wrongdoing should make this known to the proper authorities. Whether it’s doping in sports, or more criminal actions, too much goes on because people do not come forward. That being said, I am a bit concerned that perhaps in the current climate, people may be inclined to make up stories about doping, either out of vindictiveness and/or to lessen their own punishment. Time will tell how this all plays out.

And here is a piece from our friend Bonnie Ford:

http://espn.go.com/sports/endurance/story/_/id/8854048/lance-armstrong-interview-oprah-winfrey-doping-typical-spectacle

Millard Baker January 18, 2013 at 12:14 pm

William,

I guess it depends on how serious you perceive the wrongdoing to be.

Would you record all the license plate numbers of people who ‘illegally’ speed past you on their way to work? They are violating the law.

Most people don’t. A good percentage are speeding themselves.

The ones that do report this wrongdoing, if they exist, aren’t very highly regarded.

I generally don’t seeing snitching on fellows dopers as any different. Well except, that speeding is much more dangerous with a greatly likelihood of causing harm to the violator and innocent bystanders.

As far as Bonnie Ford’s piece, she’s been spending too much time with the Twitter cycling crowd.

William Schart January 18, 2013 at 5:01 pm

Millard:

You got a point, although there are some differences between reporting speeders and dopers. I am. It sure if the police could actually take action against someone you reported as speeding. Interesting.y enough, on my recent trip to New Mexico I saw signs along the interstate requesting motorists to report possible DUIs.

BuzzyB January 18, 2013 at 6:08 pm

Question. How much and what parts of Armstrong’s brain was removed during his cancer surgery? Does his brain surgery explain any of his behavior? I’m thinking along the lines of Phineas Gage.

Now back to the engine room and man the pumps….

William Schart January 18, 2013 at 9:47 pm

Most reports have him as being a combative jerk long before the cancer and that his doping dates at least as far back as his pre-cancer pro career. I doubt that this can be blamed on or excused by his cancer and/or any surgery or other treatment for same. My experience is that things that effect our brains and me tal health tend to merely intensify our true, underlying nature, and not make any real changes. Although it can appear to, since we often do a good job of hiding our true nature unless drunk, high senile etc. YMMV

William Schart January 19, 2013 at 2:42 pm

Previous post:

Next post: