As mentioned in the other thread (that got booted): None of Oprah's other shows have 'suggestive language' warnings, even the ones dealing with preteen sex changes, etc.
But both LA one on one's do.
Starts at 9:00 on OWN.
Apparently LA took this conversation down surprising paths.
Been on here already.
Showed it a couple of hours ago.
Didn't impress me at all.
Good job by the big O. For an outsider to bike racing she was reasonably familiar with the particulars, got down to pertinent details of the entire sad saga. Never attempted to be the hard boiled prosecutor, and kept the main issues in good perspective. But I can see why her show appeals mainly to a female audience.
Watched this because I'm huge bike race fan, never miss the main tours broadcasts on the telly. Lemond was a local hero where I lived, and he was so in the Tahoe-Truckee area where he was a familiar site training along the hiways long before he won the tour. GL was a genuine nice guy in those days. Lance was a different person, the opposite in many ways.
There's a few of us darto.
Chef, ScottishGiant and myself are all tragics of the grand tours.
Told the wife the happiest day of my life was when Landis' glorious breakaway TdF. Somehow I thought he was clean being Mennonite and thus above normal temptations. Very sad aftermath.
Having now watched the first part of the interview, the first 3mns or so were all that really meant anything. Everything else was either a face saving exercise or Armstrong refusing to go in to detail, despite the kind of "no holds barred" billing the interview got.
Not sure if I'll even watch the second part. Maybe just to see if he expands on his current relationship with Hincapie, but after that I think I've heard enough. Despite everything that happened, LA still believes in Omerta.
I watched CNN, which had clips of the important parts. The theme there was no remorse, but also civil law suits coming.
One person (female writer), that was reputed to have covered LA on a regular basis, kept harping on his arrogance and lack of sincerity.
Maybe that's just the way he projects. He admitted that what he saw of himself back in the doping days, was an arrogant jerk.
This writer wanted more. She basically implied that LA was up to something. Another scam, perhaps to get back into racing or the triathlons. After it was pointed out that his ban would take him to age 50 (from bike racing), she kind of pipped down.
The primary thing he might have been "up to" was to admit to it before it became inevitable. Reportedly, he was to go under oath again, with more proof, etc.
Another thing he might have been "up to", was a quicker road to bankruptcy.
If some people were expecting: "I'm so very sorry for all the hurt I caused people (etc.)", it might come when the civil court judge/jury is about to review damage awards.
Seems to me to be no coincidence that he chose "O-r-p-a-h the whale" to be his "confessor".
Why chose an overweight, completely un-athletic pig who caters to a predominantly female audience, unless one is trying to win sympathy from the female populace?Not sure what his strategy is there, but I'm convinced he has one.After all, why not chose Dan Patrick, or Jim Rome, or ESPN, or even 60 minutes instead?
I found it pathetic and revolting that, of all possible people, he chose the whale-beast.A nasty looking old obese person who has made *far too good* of a living out of getting people to prostate themselves in front of her.As if she has ANYTHING whatsoever to do with cycling, or predominantly male sports, or even sports of ANY kind, in general..
To me that choice means that Lance is up to something.Perhaps he's got some future product or service/program in mind that will be based on female clientele or fans/audience.Or maybe he just thought that winning over the female populace by bowing down in front of their whale-idol would help his image in the long run."Skinny White man-thalete confesses all to morbidly obese Nubian Queen of the airwaves".
It was two people coming together to do something because the outcome would be mutually beneficial.Not surprising for calculating, business-minded people like Armstrong and Winfrey.A win-win situation for both.
Oprah's network and production company make money and her profile gets raised outside her normal demographic.Armstrong takes the first step on a long road towards getting back in organised sport (triathlon in this case) and he does an expose interview with someone unfamiliar with his history outside of what was reported in mass media and who's not exactly going to give him the grilling that would unleash all the skeletons in the closet.
Good points.Especially the last one you stated.
Maybe that's all it was.As big of a stage as possible, without risking getting skewered by the host.
I'm still suspicious though, heh.
Biggest thing I can't abide are his answers to her questions regarding the people he slandered, defamed and sued, purely because they had the guts to speak out against him.
"We sued and said a lot of things about a lot of people and I can't remember anything specific".
And what's this "we" <bullsh*t? Just another classic deflectionary technique. No Lance, it was "YOU"!
For me, it's not so much about the PEDS as it is his treatment of people.
The guy is a sociopath.