Download 1. Why Lance Armstrong`s Oprah apology has made him even more

1. Why Lance Armstrong's Oprah
apology has made him even more
unlikeable
Mirror. UK. TAB
Jan, 18. 2013 Mirror
It is a fact about TV confessions that they never confess anything much at all.From Bill
Clinton and Princess Di, to Michael Jackson by way of Dennis Waterman, they've never
revealed anything we didn't already know.
We knew Clinton did unspeakable things with a cigar. We knew there were three people in
Diana's miserable marriage. We knew Jacko was damaged beyond the point of normal
behaviour and we always knew Rula Lenska was more reliable than one half of Minder.
And we already knew Lance Armstrong was an egomaniacal, cheating, lying, self-obsessed
and monstrous bully before he sat in front of Oprah Winfrey to reiterate the point.
And what did this world exclusive tell us? That he was a "flawed character", that "the truth
isn't what's out there, it isn't what I said", that his life was "one big lie".
He said: "This story was perfect for so long... you overcome the disease, you win the Tour de
France seven times, you have a happy marriage, you have children, it's just this mythic,
perfect story and it wasn't true. That was not true, on a lot of levels."
This is a man whose sporting achievements inspired millions. His ability to win one of the
most gruelling sporting races in the world - on five occasions after suffering testicular cancer,
having tumours cut out of his brain and being given a 40 per cent chance of survival - was
not just a good story. For the average cancer sufferer, he was hope incarnate.
Lance Armstrong was living proof that any one of us could beat the dealer, and for that he
wasn't just admired by cycling fans. He was worshipped, worldwide.
Seven 'wins' - but none of them clean
A lady called Shan told me this morning: "He gave us all hope. I'm a cancer survivor and
reading about him gave a slightly podgy girl who had been through chemo and radiotherapy
hope that I too could beat it and do great things (which I hope are in the pipeline). It's more
than a lie, it's a mockery of all the people who believed in him."
When the long rumblings about doping finally and dramatically proved to be true last year,
when old urine samples were subjected to new tests for blood-boosting drug EPO, and the
sporting authorities first charged and then booted Armstrong out, it was not just a case of a
sportsman caught doping.
It was a million dreams being torn up and flushed down the pan. It took hope away from
cancer patients. It made many human souls slightly darker, just to hear it.
If there is a dealer, he smirked, and shuffled the deck.
Yet given the chance by Oprah to explain (and reinvent) himself, Armstrong didn't have the
humanity or basic courage it would take to acknowledge the way his lawsuits, smears, abuse
and general twat-piggery made the whole of human existence slightly worse than it needed to
be.
In fact, he barely managed to mutter a 'sorry' between gritted teeth before going on to boast
about what a great liar he was and justify doping in sport as being no different to putting air
in his tyres.
It is different, Lance. It's different because there is supposed to be air in your tyres, and there
are not supposed to be drugs in your blood.
In fact if you listen to him his only real mistake was being swept away by a culture of doping
he could do nothing to control.
"I didn't invent the culture, but I didn't try to stop the culture. And that's my mistake," he
said, entirely overlooking the fact that as leader of the US team, a Tour winner, an oftinterviewed role model who could say what he pleased, and a man whose employment
contract gave him the power to hire and fire team members, he was the culture.
The thing with TV confessions is to listen to what's not being said, and the way people are
avoiding saying it. Armstrong said his "cocktail, so to speak, was only EPO, but not a lot".
Only a synthetic version of a kidney hormone which boosts red blood cells and oxygen
efficiency which was injected, smuggled across international borders, and has been banned
in international sport since 1985? Just a bit of it? Oh, well you should have said.
He also admitted there was cortisone from the very start of his career, testosterone patches,
and transfusions of his own blood which had been doped, banked, cleaned, and was then
pumped back in.
Armstrong denied forcing other cyclists to participate, although some say it was made clear if
they didn't dope they wouldn't be in the team.
He insisted doing all this just gave him "a level playing field" with other competitors, which
is a bit like saying you only murdered the little old lady because you know lots of other
people who kill little old ladies and it seems to be fashionable.
And when it came to people who were unlike him - people who were good, who did not want
to dope and thought sport was about competing - he bullied them out of cycling, he trashed
their reputations, and harried them to the point of despair.
When cyclist Christophe Bassons wrote about doping on the 1999 Tour
Armstrong effectively pushed him out of the sport.
And Armstrong first defended his doctor Michele Ferrari, then publicly dumped him over
allegations of doping, and was later found to have carried on meeting him and paid him a
total of $1million over 10 years.
When journalist Paul Kimmage called him "a cancer in cycling" after his 2009 comeback
Armstrong exploited cancer victims to defend his own reputation and try to destroy Paul's.
And when his aide and masseuse Emma O'Reilly tried to expose his abuse in 2003 he called
her a prostitute and an alcoholic and sued her personally for libel.
When Oprah asked him about that, he couldn't even remember Emma. He said: "To be
honest, Oprah, we sued so many people."
He said "she was one of those people who'd been run over and bullied". He admitted he felt
"not, uh, good."
He added: "I was just on the attack Oprah. Territory being threatened, team being
threatened, reputation being threatened: I'm going to attack."
All part of the game, eh? Let's put all that aggression down to the testosterone sandwiches
and shrug it off.
This is not to say the only kind of acceptable public apology would need tears and a rending
of clothes. But there is a big difference between saying sorry and being sorry, and Armstrong
has fluffed the first and magnificently failed to show any sign of the latter.
There are plenty of other drugs cheats, but none who oversaw, orchestrated, and perjured
themselves over it in quite the same way he did. There are none who are quite as
unemployable as Armstrong.
Today he is being counter-sued by some of those he used his lawyers to batter over the years,
and there can be no doubt he is trying to get back in the saddle - either for the sake of his
cancer charity or his own reputation - by way of a quick mea culpa to a telly chat show queen.
But it's backfired. Somehow, Armstrong's 'apology' has managed to make a persistent,
career-long drug cheat, liar and bully even more unlikeable. He hasn't even managed to
pretend sorrow, and didn't display any of the normal human emotions you might expect.
Shame. Regret. A spot of unhappy introspection, and maybe the realisation that the drug
abuse which had already begun when he was diagnosed with cancer might even have caused
or exacerbated it.
He'd already won two Tours doped up to the eyeballs - a genuine cancer campaigner might
want to tell the world these drugs aren't just unsporting, they could be fatal.
The one thing Armstrong's interview screams at you is the one thing he can't say and Oprah
didn't point out. It's the same thing we've all thought for years, but in a slightly nicer way
than we do now.
The man just isn't human. He has no remorse, no sorrow, no capacity for regret.
He doesn't give a toss about the dreams he broke, the hope that was lost, and can't see how
his amazing, life-affirming victories in the end made many lives a little sadder.
He's just a machine. And when his efforts at repair fall flat, when he finds he's still
unemployable and donations to his cancer charity fall off, he won't stop in the same way he
didn't stop on big hills, didn't stop doping and didn't stop to think what he was doing.
We could try dropping him into a pit of molten metal, but I have the feeling even that
wouldn't stop him.
There is one public service Lance Armstrong has done though - he has proved beyond all
doubt that simple, boring, humanity is a prize beyond any kind of wealth or fame. And that it
is beyond his reach.
2. Amid Tears, Armstrong
Leaves Unanswered Questions
NYT.US.NP
January 18, 2013.
NY TIMES
In an extensive interview with Oprah Winfrey that was shown over two nights, Lance
Armstrong admitted publicly for the first time that he doped throughout his cycling career.
He revealed that all seven of his Tour de France victories were fueled by doping, that he
never felt bad about cheating, and that he had covered up a positive drug test at the 1999
Tour with a backdated doctor’s prescription for banned cortisone.
Armstrong, the once defiant cyclist, also became choked up when he discussed how he told
his oldest child that the rumors about Armstrong’s doping were true.
Even with all that, the interview will most likely be remembered for what it was missing.
Armstrong had not subjected himself to questioning from anyone in the news media since
United States antidoping officials laid out their case against him in October. He chose not to
appeal their ruling, leaving him with a lifetime ban from Olympic sports.
He personally chose Winfrey for his big reveal, and it went predictably. Winfrey allowed him
to share his thoughts and elicited emotions from him, but she consistently failed to ask
critical follow-up questions that would have addressed the most vexing aspects of
Armstrong’s deception.
She did not press him on who helped him dope or cover up his drug use for more than a
decade. Nor did she ask him why he chose to take banned performance-enhancing
substances even after cancer had threatened his life.
Winfrey also did not push him to answer whether he had admitted to doctors in an
Indianapolis hospital in 1996 that he had used performance-enhancing drugs, a confession a
former teammate and his wife claimed they overheard that day. To get to the bottom of his
deceit, antidoping officials said, Armstrong has to be willing to provide more details.
“He spoke to a talk-show host,” David Howman, the director general of the World AntiDoping Agency, said from Montreal on Friday. “I don’t think any of it amounted to assistance
to the antidoping community, let alone substantial assistance. You bundle it all up and say,
‘So what?’
Jeffrey M. Tillotson, the lawyer for an insurance company that unsuccessfully withheld a $5
million bonus from Armstrong on the basis that he had cheated to win the Tour de France in
2004, said his client would make a decision over the weekend about whether to sue
Armstrong. If it proceeds, the company, SCA Promotions, will seek $12 million, the total it
paid Armstrong in bonuses and legal fees.
“It seemed to us that he was more sorry that he had been caught than for what he had done,”
Tillotson said. “If he’s serious about rehabbing himself, he needs to start making amends to
the people he bullied and vilified, and he needs to start paying money back.”
Armstrong, who said he once believed himself to be invincible, explained in the portion of
the interview broadcast Friday night that he started to take steps toward redemption last
month. Then, after dozens of questions had already been lobbed his way, he became
emotional when he described how he told his 13-year-old son, Luke, that yes, his father had
cheated by doping. That talk happened last month over the holidays, Armstrong said as he
fought back tears.
“I said, listen, there’s been a lot of questions about your dad, my career, whether I doped or
did not dope, and I’ve always denied, I’ve always been ruthless and defiant about that, which
is probably why you trusted me, which makes it even sicker,” Armstrong said he told his son,
the oldest of his five children. “I want you to know it’s true.”
At times, Winfrey’s interview seemed more like a therapy session than an inquisition, with
Armstrong admitting that he was narcissistic and had been in therapy — and that he should
be in therapy regularly because his life was so complicated.
In the end, the interview most likely accomplished what Armstrong had hoped: it was the
vehicle through which he admitted to the public that he had cheated by doping, which he had
lied about for more than a decade. But his answers were just the first step to clawing back his
once stellar reputation.
On Friday, Armstrong appeared more contrite than he had during the part of the interview
that was shown Thursday, yet he still insisted that he was clean when he made his comeback
to cycling in 2009 after a brief retirement, an assertion the United States Anti-Doping
Agency said was untrue. He also implied that his lifetime ban from all Olympic sports was
unfair because some of his former teammates who testified about their doping and the
doping on Armstrong’s teams received only six-month bans.
Richard Pound, the founding chairman of WADA and a member of the International
Olympic Committee, said he was unmoved by Armstrong’s televised mea culpa.
“If what he’s looking for is some kind of reconstruction of his image, instead of providing
entertainment with Oprah Winfrey, he’s got a long way to go,” Pound said Friday from his
Montreal office.
Armstrong acknowledged to Winfrey during Friday’s broadcast that he has a long way to go
before winning back the public’s trust. He said he understood why people recently turned on
him because they felt angry and betrayed.
“I lied to you and I’m sorry,” he said before acknowledging that he might have lost many of
his supporters for good. “I am committed to spending as long as I have to to make amends,
knowing full well that I won’t get very many back.”
Armstrong also said that the scandal has cost him $75 million in lost sponsors, all of whom
abandoned him last fall after Usada made public 1,000 pages of evidence that Armstrong
had doped.
“In a way, I just assumed we would get to that point,” he said of his sponsors’ leaving. “The
story was getting out of control.”
In closing her interview, Winfrey asked Armstrong a question that left him perplexed.
“Will you rise again?” she said.
Armstrong said: “I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know what’s out there.”
Then, as the interview drew to a close, Armstrong said: “The ultimate crime is the betrayal of
these people that supported me and believed in me.”
3. Oprah's Lance Armstrong
interview: no point nitpicking – this
was TV history.
Guardian.UK.NP
She was soft on him ... she didn't tell him he was a disgrace to humanity ... she didn't even
make him cry. Such criticism of Oprah Winfrey's Lance Armstrong coup is churlish.
Who cares? Oprah got the TV confession of the decade – and what's more she did it on her
own channel. Would any interviewer be happy with that? And some. It was brilliant
journalism.
The genius is not in the form of the interview – she more or less strokes this stony-faced
rottweiler into a mea culpa. Her genius is in getting the interview in the first place, to have
worked her way up from nowhere over 26 years to being the world's great go-to mother
confessor.
Did Oprah and Lance Armstrong: The Worldwide Exclusive Part 1 (no flipping, as Larry
Sanders would say, we've got part two tonight) make for compelling telly? Not really.
Certainly, not consistently.
There were basic structural problems. First, the set; the cod domesticity – brown sofa and
chairs, lace curtains – stripped it of tension. Then, the cameras were too polite – we needed
more unforgiving John Freeman-style close-ups. If Armstrong was ever going to writhe and
wriggle, we wanted to see it up close and personal.
Perhaps the biggest problem was Armstrong himself. He repeatedly referred to himself as a
"flawed character". Which is a bit of false modesty on his behalf. But he is also a flawed
victim, ie wholly unconvincing as a victim. He is too chiselled, his eyes too cold and quartzlike, face too composed, legs too smugly crossed. He said that he saw the anger and
disappointment and betrayal in people, but he didn't look as if he felt it. His body language
was always at odds with his words.
At one point, he laughed in the camera's eye, and says he might have called Betsy Andreu
(the wife of his former team mate Frank Andreu) a "crazy bitch", but he never called her
"fat". He admitted he still felt wronged about the way that has been reported – a fascinating
insight into his character, as Oprah pointed out.
"I will apologise to people for the rest of my life," he said, making it sound more like a threat
than a promise. Last night Lance Armstrong was still burning with righteous indignation.
What made David Frost's interview with Richard Nixon the greatest TV confession ever was
the two protagonists – both exhausted, desperate, playing for huge stakes. Nixon sweated
with fear and shame – when he talked about his flaws you could see and smell them; they
dripped down his face. Frost-Nixon was TV interviewing's Thrilla in Manila, Ali v Frazier,
two giants battering each other into submission. Martin Bashir's TV interview with Princess
Diana was wonderful in a different way – she was a pure victim, with great lines ("There
were three of us in this marriage"), and she was part of the royal family.
Armstrong's confession had less emotional impact than either Diana's or Nixon's. Could
Oprah have handled it differently? Sure. She didn't need to make excuses for him, telling us
that nearly everyone was doping so what else could he do? She didn't need to suggest that he
could become a role model for clean cycling (even he didn't have the chutzpah to go with that
line). When Armstrong mentioned the toxic monsters in professional cycling, she could have
asked him 12 times, a la Paxman, whether he was a toxic monster? There are numerous
questions that would have benefited from repeated asking, or just being asked the once. How
could Armstrong systematically go about suing and destroying the lives of those who told the
truth about him? Should he be in jail? Will he give away all his ill-gotten gains (to be fair
Oprah might still ask in part two tonight). But the bottom line is, Armstrong almost certainly
wouldn't have agreed to the interview if she had done.
The greatest structural problem was that the interview started so strongly it could only go
downhill from there. Whereas Frost-Nixon built up to the spine-tingling confession, Oprah
began with the money shot. So, as TV drama, it was all downhill from there. But this is
nitpicking.
She got Armstrong to admit he is a jerk, a bully, a cheat, and a fraud. What more could you
want than that? And the actual confession, albeit in the cosy court of Oprah, is pure drama.
Five questions, yes or no answers, and he pleads guilty to every one.
"Yes or no, did you ever take banned substances to enhance your cycling performance?"
"Yes."
"Yes or no, was one of those banned substances EPO?"
"Yes."
"Did you ever blood dope or use blood transfusions to enhance your cycling performance?"
"Yes."
"Did you ever use other banned substances like testosterone or human growth hormone?"
"Yes."
"Yes or no, in all seven of your Tour de France victories did you ever take banned substances
or blood dope?"
"Yes."
This exchange will rightly go down in television history – in its own way every bit as
significant as the Diana and Nixon confessionals.
4. Lance Armstrong tells Oprah
Winfrey that he used performanceenhancing drugs in emotional
interview.
DN.US.TAB
Earlier in the day a choked-up Armstrong apologized to the employees at
Livestrong, though it's not clear if he also admitted doping to the staff there.
BY TERI THOMPSON AND MICHAEL O'KEEFFE / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
PUBLISHED: MONDAY, JANUARY 14, 2013, 3:47 PM
UPDATED: TUESDAY, JANUARY 15, 2013, 9:23 AM
FREDERIC J. BROWN/AFP/GETTY IMAGES
Lance Armstrong, seen here speaking at a Livestrong event in October, apologizes on
Monday to the staff of the cancer foundation for putting it at risk.
Surrounded by about 10 close friends and advisers, Lance Armstrong admitted to using
performance enhancing during his widely anticipated sit-down with Oprah Winfrey Monday
afternoon.
In what was described by the Associated Press as an interview that was "emotional at times,"
Armstrong told Winfrey he used PEDs to win the Tour de France, but the extent of his
admission was unclear.
The group left a downtown Austin hotel about three hours after they arrived Monday
afternoon, the AP said, quoting someone familiar with the taping of the interview.
Armstrong had apologized to the staff at his Livestrong cancer foundation earlier in the day
but failed to directly acknowledge that he had used performance-enhancing drugs en route to
seven Tour de France titles in that meeting.
The AP reported that Armstrong told the staff of his cancer-fighting charity, "I'm sorry,"
choking up as several employees cried during the session. He apparently apologized for
letting the staff down and putting the foundation at risk but he did not make a direct
confession to the group about using banned drugs. He said he would try to restore
Livestrong's reputation.
Armstrong urged the group to continue fighting for the charity's mission of helping cancer
patients and their families according to the report. After the meeting, Armstrong, his legal
team and advisers gathered at a downtown Austin hotel for the interview even as the media
gathered in front of his Austin, Texas home, hoping for a glance at the fallen superstar or
Winfrey. Armstrong also managed to get in a morning run before the interview.
AP PHOTO
Oprah Winfrey gets what no one else before her can: a confession to doping by Lance
Armstrong.
After denying doping, and threatening anyone who suggested he might have for a decadeand-a-half, Armstrong was believed to be prepared to make at least a limited admission to
having used performance-enhancing drugs during his long career.
Winfrey's interview is scheduled to air Thursday on the Oprah Winfrey Network.
''I'm calm, I'm at ease and ready to speak candidly,'' he told the AP on Sunday, but declined
to reveal how he would answer questions about the scandal.
Armstrong was stripped of all seven Tour titles last year following the U.S. Anti-Doping
Agency report that portrayed him as being the mastermind behind ''the most sophisticated,
professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen.''
On Monday, Armstrong looked as relaxed and confident as ever, seemingly oblivious to the
media horde gathered in front of his Spanish-style house, joking about all the reporters
fighting for his attention. That may change, of course, depending on what he says in the
interview. Armstrong already faces litigation on at least two fronts -- a potential lawsuit from
an insurer he sued in 2006 and who settled with him and an already-filed lawsuit from The
Times of London, who sued Armstrong in December to recover money from the settlement
the paper paid to Armstrong in a libel suit. The British newspaper took out an add in
Sunday's Chicago Tribune with suggestions for questions Winfrey should ask the cyclist.
The Livestrong Foundation responded Monday to a New York Times article suggesting the
foundation's business dealings directly benefitted Armstrong, calling the Times claims "false
insinuations published today in The New York Times."
"We specifically take issue with the publication of thinly sourced suggestions that the
Livestrong Foundation's marketing agreements -- their existence, the process of setting them
up or any other aspect -- or other Foundation activities or relationships are in any way
improper or questionable," the statement said. "We are, in fact, proud of our record of
providing a trailblazing example of how innovative non-profits can think like for-profits,
reach new audiences, find ways to ensure the health of their organizations and, in the end,
produce even greater results for the needs they serve. We have always complied with both
the letter and the spirit of all laws, regulations and reporting requirements in all of our work,
including all contracts, agreements and payments to outside parties. To ensure this is the
case, every agreement the Foundation enters into is rigorously reviewed and approved by an
expert, independent third-party counsel before it is accepted by the executive committee of
our board of directors."
"Our mission and our work are too important to us to do otherwise and while questions may
be uncomfortable, we do welcome the opportunity to be transparent about our normal
business practices," the statement continued.
The Daily News reported in October that the Lance Armstrong Foundation sent lobbyists to
Capitol Hill this summer to raise questions about USADA's financing, mission and authority
- even though USADA's probe had nothing to do with the charity's mission to assist cancer
patients and their families. The News reported then that the lines between "Armstrong,
Livestrong and Armstrong's sponsors have long been blurred, and separating them is
virtually impossible" and said the lobbying efforts raised ethical red flags.
"It was definitely not an 'ethical best practice,' " said Sandra Miniutti, a spokeswoman for
watchdog organization Charity Navigator. "What is the intent of donors when they donate
money to a charity? In this case, it was not helping a celebrity founder take care of his
problems."
5. USA TODAY
UT.US.NP
Sports 8 a.m. EST January 18, 2013
Cyclist admits to Oprah he used performance-enhancing drugs during all seven Tour de
France wins Armstrong says his 'cocktail' was comprised of EPO, re-infusing his own boosted
blood, and testosterone. He disputes he resumed doping after his comeback, says last time
'he crossed the line' was in 2005.
Saying his "mythic, perfect story" was "one big lie," Lance Armstrong admitted that he
cheated during most of his famed cycling career and that he bullied people who dared to tell
the truth about it.After denying doping allegations for more than a decade, he also said he
used banned drugs or blood transfusions during all seven of his victories in the Tour de
France.
"I will spend the rest of my life trying to earn back trust and apologize to people," Armstrong
told talk-show host Oprah Winfrey in an interview that aired Thursday night.
Armstrong, 41, said he started taking performance-enhancing drugs in the mid-1990s and
that his "cocktail" of choice was banned testosterone, EPO and blood transfusions using his
own boosted blood.
He disputed that he doped during his comeback in 2009 and 2010, saying the last time he
"crossed the line" with banned substances was in 2005, his last victory in the Tour de France.
But he still said his comeback in 2009 might have doomed him because it gave anti-doping
officials a chance to build the case against him. He said the comeback "didn't sit well" with
teammate Floyd Landis, who accused Armstrong of doping in 2010.
Instead of telling the truth about his cheating, Armstrong said he kept covering it up because
he got swept up in the "momentum" of his own legend. He was the cancer survivor turned
superhero, the squeaky clean rider waving the American flag in victory."It just gets going,
and I lost myself in all that," Armstrong said.
He also said he didn't think he could compete if he didn't turn to doping because doping was
so pervasive in cycling. "I didn't invent the culture, but I didn't try to stop the culture,"
Armstrong said. The 90-minute broadcast was taped Monday in Austin, Texas, Armstrong's
hometown. A second portion of the interview will air Friday night.
It marked the cyclist's first extended public comments since the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency
released more than 1,000 pages of doping evidence against him October. The evidence
included sworn statements from former teammates and friends who detailed how and when
he used performance-enhancing drugs.
Armstrong said he rationalized his use of testosterone because one of his testicles was
removed in his fight against cancer. "I thought, 'Surely, I'm running low (on testosterone),'"
Armstrong said.
He also admitted to mistreating people as he tried to preserve the cover-up.
"Yeah, I was a bully," Armstrong said.
Not only did he attack those who told the truth about him, he sued them when they did. At
one point, when Winfrey asked him if he had sued Emma O'Reilly, a former team masseuse
who told of his doping, Armstrong wasn't sure. "To be honest, Oprah, we sued so many
people," he said.
He called his behavior "inexcusable" and described himself as "a guy who expected to get
whatever he wanted and to control every outcome."
To make amends, he said he has reached out to those he attacked for telling the truth about
him, including O'Reilly and Betsy Andreu, the wife of former cyclist Frankie Andreu. He said
he spoke with both Andreus in a 40-minute phone call recently but did not make peace with
them.
"No, because they've been hurt too badly," Armstrong said.
He denied pressuring other cyclists into doping, contrary to their testimony in the USADA
case. But he acknowledged he has a credibility problem after defiantly lying about his doping
for so long.
"I'm not the most believable guy in the world right now. I understand."
SECOND CHANCE?: It's an American tradition
He even said he thought he could get away with it last year after the federal government
dropped a criminal investigation into whether he committed fraud through his doping
scheme. The case was dropped without explanation.
"I thought I was out of the woods," Armstrong said.
But USADA continued to investigate and offered him the opportunity to cooperate. In
response, Armstrong said he could not resist his tendency to defend his turf, no matter what.
He turned USADA down and fought back, suing the agency in an effort to challenge its
jurisdiction – a lawsuit that eventually was thrown out of court.
"I'd do anything to go back to that day," Armstrong said of the day USADA gave him the
opportunity to come clean. "Because I wouldn't fight, I wouldn't sue them."
USADA banned him for life from sanctioned events and stripped him of his seven titles in the
Tour de France. By coming clean, Armstrong hopes to reduce that ban and compete again - a
goal that will require much more than talking to Oprah. Anti-doping officials have made
clear that he will have to cough up more details under oath.
After the broadcast, USADA said in a statement, "Tonight, Lance Armstrong finally
acknowledged that his cycling career was built on a powerful combination of doping and
deceit. His admission that he doped throughout his career is a small step in the right
direction. But if he is sincere in his desire to correct his past mistakes, he will testify under
oath about the full extent of his doping activities."
Livestrong, the cancer-fighting charity Armstrong founded 15 years ago, said in a statement
it was "disappointed by the news that Lance Armstrong misled people during and after his
cycling career, including us."
Armstrong stepped down from Livestrong's board in November, saying he did not want his
troubles to reflect on the charity.
The Livestrong statement noted he had apologized to the charity's staff earlier this week,
"and we accepted his apology in order to move on and chart a strong, independent course.
We look forward to devoting our full energy to our mission of helping people not only fight
and survive cancer, but also thrive in life after cancer.
"Even in the wake of our disappointment, we also express our gratitude to Lance as a
survivor for the drive, devotion and spirit he brought to serving cancer patients and the
entire cancer community."
In a preview of Friday's part two of the interview, Armstrong described the day in October
when all of his sponsors dropped him after USADA's evidence was released to the public.
Referring to his loss in income, he called it a "$75 million day."On his mother's reaction to
his admission, he said, "She's a wreck."
"This is too late," Armstrong said of his confession. "It's too late for probably most people,
and that's my fault."
6. Lance Armstrong Might Have
Lied to Oprah Winfrey.
HR. US.TAB
The Hollywood reporter, 18.1.2013
Authorities told ABC News that his statements about when he stopped doping are
inconsistent with blood tests.
Investigators believe that Lance Armstrong might have lied in his highly anticipated
interview with Oprah Winfrey during which he admitted to using banned substances,
ABC News reported Friday.
In part one of the interview, which aired Thursday night on OWN, the retired cyclist
told Winfrey that he used EPO, testosterone and human growth hormone as well as
blood doping or blood transfusions to enhance his performance. The admission came
after years of denials and after Armstrong was stripped of his seven Tour de France
titles and an Olympics bronze medal.
STORY: Lance Armstrong Admits to Oprah: Yes, I Used Banned Substances
Armstrong also claimed that the last time he used drugs and transitions was for the
2005 race and adamantly denied that he did not do a blood transfusion in 2009 or
2010.
But investigators say that's not true, claiming that his blood values in 2009 show
evidence of two transfusions. According to ABC News, his red blood cell count went
up suddenly twice, while his baby red blood cells did not. Investigators cite this as
evidence that he had a transfusion of mature red blood cells; they say he might have
lied to protect himself from a criminal investigation.
Betsy Andreu, who testified that Armstrong had used banned substances, also
accused Armstrong of lying about encouraging his teammates on the U.S. Postal
Service cycling team to dope. She said his denial left her "disappointed."
“You owed it to me Lance, and you dropped the ball,” she told CNN's Anderson
Cooper. “After what you’ve done to me, and what you’ve done to my family.”
Elsewhere, the reaction to Armstrong's interview was mostly negative, with many in
Hollwood attacking the disgraced cyclist on Twitter.
And Livestrong Foundation -- the nonprofit organization that Armstrong founded in
1997 to provide support for people affected by cancer -- issued a statement moments
after the interview telecast ended, saying it was "disappointed by the news that Lance
Armstrong misled people during and after his cycling career, including us."
7. He's beaten cancer, won seven
Tours, but can Lance Armstrong
find redemption on Oprah Winfrey's
sofa
IND.UK.NP
The Independent
Simon Usborne
Wednesday, 9 January 2013
Disgraced cyclist bids to win over US public in interview with queen of TV confessions His
reputation is shattered, his sponsors and cancer foundation have fled, he has lost the greatest
prizes in sport, and lawsuits circle him like sharks. Now Lance Armstrong is responding in
the way only the biggest celebrities seeking redemption can: he's talking to Oprah.
The talk show host has promised a "no-holds-barred" interview, the first by the
disgracedcyclist since US anti-doping authorities revealed his key role in what they called the
"most sophisticated doping programme that sport has ever seen".
But after months of surly defiance by the man who survived testicular cancer to win theTour
de France seven times, those preparing to watch the interview wonder how much he will
reveal and how far Oprah Winfrey will push him.
Her sofa, or Lance's in this case – the interview will take place in his Texas home – has been
the stage for some of the biggest attempted rehabilitations in sport and beyond. But Winfrey
is known for her cosy rather than confrontational style, drawing tears by the gallon but rarely
blood.
She drew criticism after barely challenging Marion Jones when the former sprinter claimed
in an interview in 2008 to have had no knowledge of her own doping. The American had just
served a six-month prison sentence for her part in the Balco scandal. Winfrey's warmth and
reach have tempted Michael Jackson and the Duchess of York, among others, to reveal
perhaps more than they had planned, while her talk show has been both credited and
criticised for unleashing a culture of confession that won her millions of fans.
The "Oprah-fication" of American life, as the Wall Street Journal called it, has also been
observed beyond the glare of the presenter's studio lights, in the "emoting" of public figures
and even presidents. But Winfrey has struggled to maintain her influence since she quit her
eponymous show in 2011 to launch the Oprah Winfrey Network (OWN), which has suffered
from declining
viewing figures and management shake-ups. She was rumoured to be pursuing Tiger Woods
before the golfer made his own televised statement four months after revelations about his
infidelity. Armstrong is arguably a bigger and much-needed ratings coup.
OWN announced the interview with the cyclist yesterday. But it added nothing about the
extent of any confession or the timing of the conversation, which will be broadcast on
television and on line at 2am, British time, on 18 January. Nor has it revealed
whether2/2/2014 He's beaten cancer, wonseven Tours, but canLance Armstrong find
redemption on Oprah Winfrey's sofaquestions have been pre- approved.
Few are holding their breath in anticipation of a full mea culpa. "Armstrong has defended
himself with tooth and nail for decades," said Ned Boulting, the ITV cycling commentator.
"To dent his reputation in front of a global audience would represent a complete about face
in the way he operates.
Armstrong's lawyers will pay closest attention to the interview. The cyclist is already facing
lawsuits filed by some of the accusers he sought to silence. If he can navigate legal pitfalls
while appearing contrite, he could flourish before a typically forgiving audience."Oprah
appeals to that deep part of middle America that to some extent still wants to believe in
legends," Boulting said. "There are still people on Armstrong's side and those who are
swayable to his cause even if it's cast in a different light. Oprah is perfect."
Armstrong has shown little sign of contrition since he was stripped of his titles in October. In
November, he tweeted a photo of himself lying on his sofa surrounded by his framed Tour de
France jerseys. This week he changed his profile on Strava, a popular fitness website, to read:
"According to my rivals, peers, and teammates I won the Tour de France 7 times."
8. Lance Armstrong confesses to
Oprah.
MO.UK.TAB
Mail online 18 January 2013
Lance Armstrong last night finally came clean about his years of using performanceenhancing drugs in his first lengthy public interview since the governing committees accused
him of running the 'sophisticated' doping ring to secure his world record titles.
‘I view this situation as one big lie that I repeated a lot of times,’ he said in an televised
interview with Oprah Winfrey screened Thursday night.
He admitted that he doped in some form for each of his seven Tour de France victories,
though he maintained that the last time that he 'crossed that line' was in 2005.
The distinction of before and after 2005 is important as that was the last year that capped off
his incredible seven-year winning streak at the Tour de France. On top of the outright
confession, he said that part of the reason why it carried on for as long as it did was because
he 'didn't feel like' he was cheating.
'The definition of cheat is to gain an advantage on a rival or foe that they didn't have. I didn't
view it that way. I viewed it as a level playing field,' he said. He described the elaborate
doping ring that he and his teammates developed was not quite as legendary as the
investigatory commissions described it.
'It was definitely professional and it was definitely smart if you can call it that but it was very
conservative, very risk averse, and very aware of what mattered,' he said. ‘While I've lived
through this process ... I know the truth the truth isn’t what is out there, the truth isn’t what I
said.’
‘I didn't invent the culture but I didn't try to stop the culture and that's my mistake. The
sport is now paying the price for that, and I am sorry for that. ‘This story was so perfect for so
long- and I mean that as I try to take myself out of this situation- it’s this mythic, perfect
story and that wasn't true, on a lot of levels.'
He even tried justifying his decisions because of his history with overcoming cancer. 'My
cocktail was only EPO- not a lot- transfusions, and testosterone which in a weird way, I
justified in my history with testicular cancer. Surely I'm running low,' he said.
Winfrey faced Armstrong with his own words, showing him a tape of one of his own
interviews under oath with sport authorities, and he denied the claims that he made in
support of the controversial Italian doctor Michele Ferrari who helped him dope.
'I'm not comfortable talking about other people. It's all out there,' Armstrong said after
watching the tape, though he did say that he had lied in the interview.
'I look at this clip and say "Look at this arrogant prick,"' he said of his former self.
Though he remained vigilant throughout the interview about not naming-names, he was also
very forceful in denying claims that he pressured his fellow riders into taking performance
enhancing drugs.
'I made my decisions, and I made my mistakes and I am here,' he said.
'The idea that anybody was forced or pressured or encouraged are not true,' he said
specifically responding to the claims made by some of his former teammates, most notably
Tyler Hamilton who wrote a book about the doping plot that they perpetrated for years.
'I'm out of the business of calling somebody a liar, but if you ask me if that is true or not, that
is not true.
'We're all grown men, we all made our choices.
'I was a bully in a sense that I tried to control the narrative.'
He said that only now is he starting to truly understand the breadth of the betrayal,
disappointment, and anger that his fans feel towards him over the scandal.
'I will spend the rest of my life trying to earn back trust and apologize to people for the rest of
my life,' he said.
The interview was taped on Monday in Armstrong's hometown of Austin, Texas, but Winfrey
waited to air the interview until Thursday night.