Anyone watching the interview on OWN?
When does it start?
I'll be watching with a big bowl of popcorn. Starts at 9:00 ET and concludes tomorrow night at 8:00 I think.
That's a long-ass interview, r1. What could he possibly have to say for that long?
R2 I guess they didn't want to edit anything important out so although it was supposed to be only one night they decided to milk it for all it was worth and have it on two nights.
Oprah's network OWN desperately needs the ratings. That's why it's stretched out over two nights. Apparently Armstrong doesn't even confess to using performance enhancing drugs till tomorrow night.
I won't watch it, but I bet the first half of the interview builds his image as a daddy, and a husband, a cancer survivor. I wonder if his kids and both the present and the ex wife will appear. Once they have the viewer's sympathies they'll deal with the cheating stuff. Just my guess.
I can't wait to see this !!!!
Why does cheeseball even get all this attention? Shame on Oprah.
the viewer's = viewers'
Might have been wishful thinking on my part.
r1, you are sick. There's nothing mildly entertaining about somebody being stripped of their honor. You are one of the types who would have been leering in glee up at the guillotine as Marie Antoinette lost her head.
Im really not interested in this.
But the NERVE of Sister Oprah spreading interviews out over two nights!
R9 must be joking.
In a way, Oprah is shrewd; I think she deliberately has guests who are much more malicious and sociopathic than she is (hence all her interviews with Scientology-pigs). So it makes this little tin, soccer-mom-worshiped frau-goddess look more all the more noble by comparison. If I were a big-time, egotistical media whore like Oprah, that's probably what I would do that as well. When it comes to public-image-relations, you'll never hear me call Oprah a dummy.
Oprah's so fat that they're having to spread her over two nights.
Oprah's not a sociopath. She's narcissistic, sure but her conscience has deluded her. Success made her overestimate her importance.
The evil jackass completely deserves it r9.
I got a bag of Ritz sour cream and onion toasted chips on the ready. They are so good!
r15, I was always taught never to give any attention whatsoever to undignified people and CERTAINLY never to stoop to their level by glorying in their mental anguish.
[quote] I wonder if his kids and both the present and the ex wife will appear. Once they have the viewer's sympathies they'll deal with the cheating stuff.
They could do a whole series on his cheating. He cheated on his wife and that broke up his marriage and family. He cheated at bike racing. Is anyone else seeing a trend with Lance? He's a fucking CHEATER. He cheats at everything. He'll cheat Oprah on his interview too by barely saying anything and barely admitting to cheating/doping
Nothing's sacred, even a celebrity's public image.
Some people will have a difficult time to finally accept how fake those public images of celebrities are and how ridiculous these people are to take those fake images as gospel and even defend the celebrities' honor when their public image is questioned.
[quote] There's nothing mildly entertaining about somebody being stripped of their honor
yes there is. I remember all the times he DENIED cheating/doping. How he said everyone else was lying.
Remember his book, "It's Not About the Bike"? How hilarious is that title now? He was so right about that. It's about the drugs, cheating and lying
You can watch it live online on own.com.
I have Cox cable, but for some reason my channel 65 (OWN) has been blank for some time
R19 exactly. He deserves every bit of humiliation that comes his way. He made millions of dollars based on a lie. I shouldn't be denied the right to eat a bowl of popcorn while I revel in his fall from grace. Millions of people worldwide live honest, hard working lives and have very little to show for it. Armstrong is a disgrace.
I admit, I would be gleeful if people like Cheney, Bush and Rove lost their heads in a basket but I have no interest in any athlete. Why should I give a fuck about an athlete? I don't.
[quote]That's a long-ass interview . . .What could he possibly have to say for that long?
Well, there's a couple decades worth of drug-use, deception, lawsuits, investigations, and battles with teammates to cover.
r23, you give enough of a fuck to post on a thread about an athlete who is talking to Oprah.
Supposedly the rumours about Lance and Matt are addressed, and their 'bromance' are to be addressed. Oprah makes the comparassion about herself and Gayle, so I can see where this whole stupid thing is going to go...
If you want to watch online, the interview will stream during each broadcast time on Oprah.com
But no one will ever point out that the type of cancer he got is a side effect of the doping he took pat in. That's what's so incredible to me.
No but he does justify taking testosterone because he only had one nut. Freak.
[quote]He just admitted it all in the first 30 seconds.
Doesn't that make the rest of the interview anti-climatic?
"He just admitted it all in the first 30 seconds."
yeah, so much for all that speculation that he wouldn't confess till the second part or the first part of the show would trot out his family or he wouldn't even confess at all. You fuckers talk out your ass so much, I'm surprised you have anal at all.
Cancer can drive people to do desperate things - especially if you survive it, I guess.
[quote]Lance Armstrong admits to using PEDs in Oprah Winfrey interview
Lance Armstrong confessed to using performance-enhancing drugs to win the Tour de France during an interview with Oprah Winfrey, reversing more than a decade of denial.
"Yes," Armstrong said when Winfrey asked if he used a series of drugs to help his record run.
Sitting in a chair across from Winfrey, Armstrong said he could not have won the race seven times without the drugs and gave a small smile.
Armstrong is indeed nervous — his account of himself is strangely disjointed, he is smiling in a creepy way at inappropriate times, and though he has had a lot of time to get his story straight, he does not seem to have a very coherent narrative — but he also seems oddly removed from what is going on. (Perhaps he has not doped, but raided the beta-blocker/anti-anxiety pill section of his medicine cabinet?). He is practically talking about himself in the third person, referring to the “mythic perfect story” and saying that the story has become “so bad, so toxic.” But of course “the story” is not a separate thing at all.
— Sarah Lyall
He's still lying. He wasn't doping in 2009 and 2010? The last time he doped was in 2005? Oh, how convenient. The best deal he can get from WADA is a cut of his lifetime ban to 8 years--backdated to the last time he was doping. 2005 plus 8 years is...2013. How convenient indeed.
The guy is desperately trying to salvage the silverware off the Titanic.
Oprah doesn't know cycling. I'm sure she had a crack team of 100 to prep her for the interview but she doesn't understand the sport and cannot follow up with the right questions to Armstrong's answers. She is letting too much go. Armstrong obviously chose her because she can't trap him.
[quote]There are a lot of commercials.
YOU'RE DAMN RIGHT!
OWN Network 2011 - 2013
R52 you're right. She already had her questions planned going into the interview and didn't really stray from that plan. She doesn't know enough about doping or cycling to probe further.
[quote]He admitted to doping in the first five minutes
Oh god, see...Oprah's got her hand on her chin, they're getting all cozy and emotional now. Armstrong can spin the story he was just another insect in the giant corrupt spiderweb of cycling. Is she going to get into the specifics of how he ruined his enemies? I want her to go down the list-the Andreaus, Lemond, Mike Anderson, etc.
He is a POS and anyone who thinks he did anything worthwhile with his convenient little cancer non-profit is an idiot. I'd love to see how much money he was laundering through his charity to pay the hush-money to everyone who helped him cheat.
Any AndroGel commercials?
What Winfrey failed to do is press Armstrong about his testimony in the SCA Promotions case. Did he lie about Ferrari then? Yes. About many other things? Yes. She should have pushed him to admit that he lied under oath and broke the law in an effort to hide his doping past. That’s how far he was willing to go.
Psychologists will have a field day with this. Two supreme narcissists going at it, each living in a world of denial.
[quote]Not watching Lance tonight because a) i don't know where OWN is on my system and b) don't give a shit, and not in that order
He's seems embarrassed.
Doped in the mid 90's and couldn't do anything in the tour except win one stage. There were years when he couldn't even make it to the finish line in Paris.
Dopes in all seven wins.
Didn't dope in 2009 but finishes 3rd after being retired for 4 years and in his late 30's? Right. Does Oprah even spot this incredulous claim? Does she follow up? Nope.
Lance is adhering to douchebag rule No. 1: The first step is to admit that everyone else was the problem.
The Guardian has a good live blog. They are crucifying him on the spot:
He's a lying sociopath and narcissist - everything is done for his own benefit - he would fuck anyone over to get what he wants. He will never repent, this is all staged on his part. I think Lance Armstrong cannot reform or change. He sees himself as a superior being and has no empathy or remorse for what he's done. He just wishes he hadn't got caught, but he still figures he will conquer all of this and his enemies.
I love The Guardian:
[quote]Weird cutaway to ad break, with Lance in midstream. Which should remind us that Oprah needs Lance as much as the other way around. She told us, in a booster-ish way, earlier in the week that this was the biggest interview she had ever done, beating even her encounter with Michael Jackson. Well, she would say that, wouldn't she?
[quote]OWN has not been the instant hit many would have assumed that Oprah would make it. The Armstrong interview is a huge coup.
[quote]So the Pelvic Mesh Warning advert we just saw is very important to the OWN's quest for audience share and ad revenue.
The definition at R's link is better than the OWN def on my tv.
Sadly, I think that was supposed to be the hard-hitting Oprah.
Part two is going to turn into Armstrong crying about his kids, mom and cancer victims. Oprah will spend most of her cradling her chin with the right hand.
[quote]HE SAID YES TO EVERYTHING! He did it all! Wow!
This shocks me, even though it doesn't surprise me. It's the fact that he's saying "yes" to Oprah's questions.
For those who haven't watched the interview yet, Lance Armstrong admits it all in the first 30 seconds.
The show will repeat every hour... this is unprecedented! This interview totally shocked me.
Is anyone watching the AC360 follow-up panel? This Betsy Andreou sounds drunk and seems to be receiving guidance from her ear piece.
who's that bitter bitch on anderson cooper, his ex wife?
He still lies
No kidding R49. It's like one-and-a-half hours of commercials broken up by three minutes of Oprah and Lance. No wonder it's spread over two nights.
I'm enjoying. Cant believe she got him to admit everything. Something was about to leak.
Can he be put on trial for perjury now?
R73 that's Betsy Andreu, the wife of a former teammate and friend of LA's. She was one of Lance's "victims" in that she tried to expose him and he in return tried to ruin her and her husband. She feels betrayed like a jilted lover. And she wants vindication. I thought she sounded drunk.
It seems that Lance isn't nice.
Emma O'Reilly is the one Armstrong tried to label a prostitute and a drunk.
Tonight he told Oprah.... well, she was telling the truth. A doctor backdated an RX (due to phony saddle sores) because I tested positive for cortisone.
Wow, this is fucking appalling.
Did Tyler Hamilton fool around with Lance? Just curious.
He is still lying. I absolutely believe that he would not allow anyone on the team that wasn't doping. He couldn't afford someone clean and risk their snitching on him. They were safer for him if they were doping, too. It gave him something to have on them and if they got caught, like Landis, he could accuse them of being a lying doper. There is no way he wasn't the mastermind along with the doctor. He is too much of a control freak, by his own admission.
Loved that it was called Oprah and Lance Armstrong with Oprah listed first. Just in case Lance didn't realize who he was dealing with. Hard to decide who had the biggest ego in that room.
[quote]Can he be put on trial for perjury now?
No, the time is up for that. That's why he waited a specific number of years since the trial to admit that he lied.
This is the most shocking interview that I have ever seen.
I am waiting until later to watch it, but all of the other commentary I've read has been critical of Oprah for not nailing him on key issues. What's shocking about it r85?
It really doesn't matter what Oprah knows about cycling, neither does the rest of the audience.
What she has gotten out of him is so damaging there is no recovery. The lawsuits and prosecutions will do the rest.
The fact that he is admitting to everything, and telling the women calling him out "bitches and whores".
Are you kidding, r85?
I watched the entire 90 minutes and wasn't blown away.
Armstrong would not admit that what Betsy Andreu said was true (about his hospital confession to Dr). He only said that he didn't want to go there.
Oprah and Armstrong, the interview continues Part 2....
In reality, only a sports journalist angry at his lies would have crucified him in the interview. I can't see anyone at the major news networks not doing the same soft interview that they do with everyone else to make sure they get major interviews.If they held him to the fire other people would not want to do interviews with them. Unfortunately, that is the way journalism has gone.
"Armstrong would not admit that what Betsy Andreu said was true (about his hospital confession to Dr). He only said that he didn't want to go there"
He was pretty adament when something wasn't true so his "don't want to go there" is basically an admission that it was. He called Andreu and spoke with her about it but wouldnt' elaborate what was said claiming the conversation was private. If he had been vindicated by Andreau he would have proclaimed it from a mountain top. No she was correct, he apologized to her, and he doesn't want to "go there".
Am I the only one who thinks he's slightly coming across as smug and unremorseful in this interview?
Huh, r88? I didn't see it yet, so can you explain what you mean? He's calling the women who told the truth about him bitches and whores?
First off, I didn't watch the interview and won't. A study came out recently which found athletes that used performance-enhancing drugs do not feel shame about it and actually are more proud of their achievements than those that don't. Once they pass the drug use threshold their mindset changes. It's a toothpaste out of the bottle situation where you can't go back to the morals you once had.
R61 I doubt it. Sports journalists are supportive of cheating in this manner. They want to be there when records are broken. If sports journalists did their jobs there wouldn't be this massive problem. It's only fringe elements that report on this stuff.
Christine Brennan, Sports Reporter for USA Today, just ripped Lance Armstrong a new one on Piers Morgan's show on CNN.
Anderson Cooper and Erin Burnett have had several panels tonight on this issue and everyone is in agreement that Lance Armstrong is a pathological liar and a despicable person.
r88 didn't phrase that exactly right.
Armstrong admitted that he called some of the women who told the truth about him bitches and whores.
Interesting enough.... he insisted that he never called this particular woman fat. Yes, I said she was crazy and a liar, but I never called her fat.
LOL... Talk about splitting hairs!
Anderson Cooper brought up the fat comment to the woman on his panel.
"Oh, my!" what?
R97 I think people are angriest when they are deceived. Many famous people have done worse things than this.
He's cute so I forgive him.
If he was REMOTELY really repentant, he should have the good grace to admit it, and disappear.
It's not like he took illegal drugs on the side - his entire career and success (and fortune) is based on his use of perfomance-enhancing procedures - to a degree which, in medical and technical terms, probably exceeded his cancer treatment...
[quote]Many famous people have done worse things than this.
It's hard to do much worse than this, actually.
So whats the connection, if any, between doping and his cancer. Will Oprah go there?
Oprah did an amazing job interviewing him. It did not matter that she did not get him to admit every single thing. She basically slowly and methodically exposed every side of him. Anyone suggesting she should have pushed on certain areas is ignoring this guys serious psychopathy. His whole admission that he called the one woman a liar and a whore, but not fat just emphasizes how much time this guy spends splitting hair. If you got too aggresive with him he would shut up.
"Anderson Cooper brought up the fat comment to the woman on his panel"- R101
No he didn't. He showed the clip of Armstrong talking about Betsy Andreu and the fat comment was part of that. The shocking thing was that Lance actually said to Oprah that he had never called her fat, like that was the worst of his sins. He's a lunatic.
and to add...the reason AC showed her that clip was because it pertained to her. He wanted her reaction.
He's a classic sociopath. Look at what he did to Sheryl Crow... This should come as no surprise to anyone.
[quote] Armstrong is indeed nervous — his account of himself is strangely disjointed, he is smiling in a creepy way at inappropriate times, and though he has had a lot of time to get his story straight, he does not seem to have a very coherent narrative — but he also seems oddly removed from what is going on.
I heard an experienced cycling commentator asked whether he thought Armstrong was answering things in an odd way. He said no, he didn't, that's the way Armstrong has always responded to questions.
It's long been known that he treated women literally like garbage, but most people were willing to overlook it/shrug it off when they thought he was some great sports hero.
He is not cute, he has mean eyes!
The Guardian recap is worth reading:
So, what did we learn here?
• That Lance Armstrong did use performance-enhancing drugs. But Usada told us that already. So did the Oprah interview pre-publicity.
• That Lance Armstrong is prepared to call himself a "jerk" and an "arrogant prick", but that he only admits to bullying in limited circumstances and as a personal flaw. A bit like biting one's nails.
• He looked amazingly sleek, healthy, only slightly greyer. For a guy whose world has been torn down in the last six months, he appeared remarkably unstressed. Whatever he's on now, I'd like some too, please.
• He's still friends with George Hincapie, his loyal lieutenant in all his Tour-winning teams – and as Armstrong admitted, the most "credible" witness against him. But George Hincapie is incapable of falling out with anyone. His overtures in this interview to Betsy Andreu, Emma O'Reilly and others he victimised when he had the power to do so may go unanswered. There were several hundred people owed apologies by Armstrong who went begging here. In fact, did he really apologise to anyone?
• He refused to give any clue of whether he would, as has been reported, cooperate with the anti-doping agency Usada, and possibly testify against senior officials of cycling's governing body, the UCI. His denial of the 2001 Tour de Suisse "cover-up" story suggests strongly otherwise.
• In this part, Oprah did not ask him about whether he would agree that his dope-cheating amounted to defrauding the US Postal Service, which sponsored his team 1999-2003 to the tune of at least $30m. We'll see if she goes there in part 2.
• Oprah is no Scott Pelley, David Walsh or Paul Kimmage. Oprah may have had 112 questions prepared, but she let Armstrong evade her and even allowed him to trespass into afternoon TV touchy-feely territory. Sometimes, you really do need a journalist.
In short, this was not very edifying. If Armstrong was able to reduce his Livestrong Foundation staff to tears with his confession and apology, I hope OWN's audience are made of more skeptical, sterner stuff.
This was more strategy by Armstrong. The confession he got out of the way very quickly; it was actually limited. The rest was obfuscation and camouflage.
I am eager for the ratings to be released for last night's special.
[quote]It's long been known that he treated women literally like garbage
Has it been explained what led to the breakup of his marriage?
He was really nasty to anyone who suggested he used drugs. He verbally bashed that British sports writer who wrote the book about him. The guy was right about Armstrong all along.
Armstrong is a liar and a cheat. He's not sorry for what he did. He's sorry that he got caught.
What did he do to Sheryl R112? Other than end their engagement?
"Oh, I'm sorry about destroying anyone who said anything about my drug abuse - except I can't remember who they were..."
Rot in hell, you animal...
After watching the interview with Oprah, I saw a complete insincere fraud who is just trying to save a what may be misiscule bit of his reputation. He was not at all believabel. In my opinion he is a complete narcissistic, self-serving sociopath. Forgiveness for what he did to others, by trying to take them down and sue people in the face of his lie is not a forgivable situation.
anne p murray
DL deleter, Tig Notaro, is just like him. Just much less famous. It's great to see a liar and a vicious bully fall.
R118 It was the constant cheating.
I'm really enjoying this shit. I thought I'd watch three minutes of it and switch over to something else. Oprah cut short of getting him to admit that he murdered Nicole Simpson.
[quote]Oprah cut short of getting him to admit that he murdered Nicole Simpson.
Oprah didn't get him to do anything. He went in there with an agenda.
[quote]It was the constant cheating.
So Lance is an adulterer, too? Has he admitted this yet?
NIGHT 2....LETS DO IT
I really like the Guardian live blog. They have informed journalists who've dealt with Armstrong commenting and they're pulling in Tweets from others in the cycling world.
re 129 do you have a direct link?
I don't know about today's link since I have to leave home soon and will have to miss, but it's probably connected to the one at R65 from yesterday's live chat.
R108...testicular cancer can be caused by the kind of doping Armstrong engaged in. The doping is undoubtedly what caused his cancer,
r16, then why the hell are you at Datalounge?!!!
He almost looked like a human being when talking about his children.
The Voice of the Night
That last hour was pretty much a useless cheese fest by Oprah. She did everything she could to turn it into waterworks and make Armstrong remotely human. She had to pull one more hokey stunt with that 'truth will set you free' ending. I thought Armstrong was going to die laughing.
I don't know why I even bothered to expect anything more from Oprah, but she really played down to her softball image. I'm surprised she didn't offer him an ice cream cone. Why is she so immune to pertinent follow-up questions?
Great book 'From Lance to Landis'... Well researched/ annotated. Lance is still lying....not surprising really
That's what she does with interviewees that have been prepped, R136.
After throwing a relatively hard question, she'll follow it up with a much gentler one. Sort of a good cop/bad cop style of interviewing.
Opus's arm is as big as my leg
When Armstrong was lamenting the $75 million in future earnings vanishing in one day, Oprah was probably thinking, "Pocket change...in the back of my sofa."
The reason he may not want to "go there" with Andreu is because she accuses him of doping pre-cancer, which I believe he is still denying.
I think she was married to a teammate of his, all three were close friends. She was in the hospital room when the doctors came in and were asking him about what drugs he was on (pre-cancer or at the time of his first diagnosis) and he listed them, including the performance enhancing drugs that are known to cause cancer.
When she said so publicly, Armstrong destroyed her.
And see that's the big issue. His doping caused the cancer. The cancer is what made him the big hero to everyone, it's the source of everything that's happened to him. He is desperately trying to create this impression that he's 'coming clean' so he can continue to lie about not doping before the cancer, because if people realized that he actually created that situation he'll be universally vilified.
Piers Morgan has been one of the only people I've seen today who had the guts to point out that Armstrong's drug use may have caused the cancer.
He admitted to doping before he got cancer. He was doping in the mid-90's. He's claiming his second comeback in 2009 was dope free.
Which is most likely false, R144. Several sports journalists said as much last night.
Does Oprah challenge him on the claim that 2009 was dope-free?
At a younger age, he can only contend the race with sophisticated PEDs, yet years later he's able to achieve a podium finish while racing clean? It's preposterous.
"In a way, Oprah is shrewd; I think she deliberately has guests who are much more malicious and sociopathic than she is (hence all her interviews with Scientology-pigs). So it makes this little tin, soccer-mom-worshiped frau-goddess look more all the more noble by comparison"
When is the Big O going to do a jailhouse interview with Jerry Sandusky?
Did anyone find it bizarre that Lance said the Cancer spurred his ruthless "win at all costs mentality"? Wouldn't you think that cancer would be humbling or something. I think blaming the cancer for that mentality doesn't make sense and there is some ulterior motive for that strange claim. Thoughts?
My thoughts on that is LOL! A poster on another Lance thread predicted that he would say precisely that his cancer gave him a win at all costs mentality.
Well done sir!
Yeah, but later on he also claimed the cancer grounded him and made him a better person til he lost his way.
Whatever man. This guy wouldn't know the truth if it kicked him in the crotch. He's just a liar for life.
It's as if he is saying getting cancer makes you ruthless and wicked. Anyone ever hear that as a side effect of cancer? I sometimes wonder if he really had cancer.
Body Language expert cites Armstrong as "unsettling" ...
I saw everything she did and came to the same conclusions watching him last night:
Apparently he's worth 125 mil. That must've come mainly from endorsements, appearances and winnings. He needs to give ALL of that back before he deserves any respect whatsoever. Talk is cheap.
Body language "experts" are full of shit (That said, he's definitely a liar)
Did you watch the clip R156? Usually I'd agree with you, but she was good.
R153, that sounds stupid. Of course it was unsettling. How could it not be?
I thought R153's link was interesting.
I've only seen clips of the interview. I had muted the sound to take a phone call and while the Armstrong clip was playing I noticed he was clearly saying "no" while shaking his head yes.
I didn't know what the questions were. When I rewound it they turned out to be the "did you believe it was wrong" and "did you feel bad" and so on. I'm no body language expert but this is one behavioral tic that I do know and Lance has got it.
The thing is, while I'm sure he knew it was wrong I'm not at all sure he felt bad about it.
LOL, R140! Seriously, I watched Oprah's face when he was talking about losing $75 million and her facial expression look empathetic and sad for him. Like, "Wow, that's got to hurt to lose that kind of money." Since money is #1 to Oprah.
Oprah did a good job with this interview. She got him to admit a HUGE number of incriminating things - some within just the first couple of minutes of the interview!
Sure one can find a few questions where she could have done a better follow-up, but we have to ask ourselves, could any of us have done better? Could any of us have gone up against such a huge name and such an enormous pathological liar and expected to take him down better than Oprah did?
[quote]Apparently he's worth 125 mil
I'm surprised it's this little after so many years as a successful professional athlete. At least it pales in comparison to the top athletes in other sports who make that much in two or three years in their prime.
If he's involved in litigation for years, his attorneys fees and settlements could easily whittle that down to nothing. He must really be shitting bricks.
[quote] but we have to ask ourselves, could any of us have done better? Could any of us have gone up against such a huge name and such an enormous pathological liar and expected to take him down better than Oprah did?
What a stupid thing to say.
Uh, r161, the whole point of Lance doing an interview was to confess/come clean/admit incriminating things.
Oprah didn't have to do squat. She just happened to be the one he picked. 60 minutes or another format like that would have been much tougher.
[quote]Oprah didn't have to do squat.
The hell she didn't. She did plenty just by being OPRAH. She is one of the most famous names in the world and he picked her for that reason. He didn't just go and talk to any old reporter. She is a unique entity and she had the ability to get him to do what no one else yet had.
I watched the interview carefully and then I re-watched it. Oprah looked like she didn't believe half the crap coming out of Lance.
I still don't think Lance came completely clean.
[quote]I still don't think Lance came completely clean.
Of course he didn't. And he likely never will. No one is going to be able to get him to admit everything.
Lance picked her because she's EASY!!
Remember James Frey? Took ages for Oprah to realize/admit he wasn't telling the truth.
And, when she finally did get him back on the show to confront him, it wasn't much of a confrontation at all.
If he wants the DOJ to cut him any slack, he needs to name names and detail the conspiracy.
I dislike him more than ever now. I hadn't heard about the bullying before this.
[quote]Apparently he's worth 125 mil. That must've come mainly from endorsements, appearances and winnings. He needs to give ALL of that back
Don't expect him to GIVE it back. Several companies are taking him to court to force him to return the money.
I didn't give much of a shit about the doping. They all dope and I don't care about cycling.
The bullying and ruining the careers of whistleblowers is what bothered me about this creep. He's still not coming completely clean about that OR the doping.
They'll never let him race again. If that was his goal, mission not accomplished.
[quote]They all dope
I really enjoyed it. It went by quickly too. I really didn't know much about the scandal, and I figured I wouldn't give a shit. Right from the opening, his admission to every single thing she asked him was startling.
Oprah did a great job.
Why should he give back sponsor money? Trek sold an awful lot of bikes by using his name. I own one, as well a couple of NIKE cycling shoes, that they only made post-Lance to cash in on the popularity he brought to the sport. Oakley and all those other companies also sold tons of product based on his endorsement. They made their money - most of them HAD to know he was doping. Everyone was doping! It was impossible to be a professional cycling in that era and not dope.
He won't get future income but I don't see why he shouldn't keep the old monies, considering the profit those companies made.
[quote]Why should he give back sponsor money?
The US Postal Service was one of his main sponsors, r174. Now tell us of the hundreds of dollars worth of stamps you purchased due to his connection.
He also sued publications for claiming that he was doping. He won huge amounts of money from those court cases. Now, all those people want their money back since he lied under oath.
A prank note in an Australian library declaring that disgraced cyclist Lance Armstrong's books would be moved to the fiction section has gone viral on the Internet, with one commentator declaring: "Hell hath no fury like a librarian".
"All Non-Fiction Lance Armstrong Books, including 'Lance Armstrong - Images of a Champion', 'The Lance Armstrong Performance Program and 'Lance Armstrong: World's Greatest Champion,' will soon be moved to the fiction section," read the sign posted at Sydney's Manly Library on Saturday.
A photograph of the sign posted on the Internet quickly sparked heated debate over whether Armstrong's fight against cancer and motivation of people outweighed his drug cheating in a sport rife with doping.