Prev
Next

I won’t be watching Oprah’s Lance Armstrong interview

Susie O'Brien

by Susie O'Brien

12 Jan 06:00am

Must Reads

The Punch is moving house - this is a caption

The Punch is moving house

385

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this? - this is a caption

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

122

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming” - this is a caption

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

251

Filed under: Cheating, Cycling, Lance Armstrong, Oprah, Sport, Television

72 comments

Don’t let cycling supercheat Lance Armstrong take you for another ride. This is what he’s no doubt planning to do when he appears on Oprah’s couch in a no-holds-barred interview next week.

I'm, um…..sorry…

Oprah is promising no question will be off-limits, but, interestingly, the interview will not be broadcast in full or live. No doubt Armstrong will be contrite, sincere and regretful. He may even cry.

He may need a few rehearsals to get these emotions down pat.

He will probably blame his reliance on performance-enhancing drugs on his traumatic childhood. We’ll hear of his “secret shame”.

He’ll tearfully say things like: “I didn’t love myself enough to tell the truth” and “I didn’t think I was good enough to win without it”.

And there’s the ever-reliable scapegoat: “I’ve got no one to blame but myself”.

The problem is that a full confession could have serious legal ramifications and even land him in jail.

And so we are less likely to see a real admission of guilt, and more likely to hear generic non-apologies such as: “I know I have hurt a lot of people”.

But there’s one word that I don’t want to hear him say:sorry. It’s just too late for that.

Any apology would be for the wrong reasons; as usual it would all be about Lance, and not at all about the people he’s destroyed by lying about his drug use all these years.

I don’t think he’s really sorry anyway. You don’t spend years and years committing systemic fraud and then suddenly have a change of heart.

He may be sorry for himself. He’s certainly very sorry that his image is trashed and that he’s an international laughing stock.

But I can’t imagine that he’s actually sorry for what he did.

For the record, what he did was not just take a few drugs, but orchestrate what the US Anti-Doping Agency has called the most sophisticated doping program in cycling history.

The fact that an interview by someone of Oprah’s stature is even taking place is a problem because it is giving him more airtime and gravitas than his sorry cheating arse deserves.

However, the tell-all confessional format is a popular and well-worn path for celebrities in need of public absolution.

It’s heavy on emotion and light on fact. The criticism comes in one big hit, allowing the celebrity to tell their side of the story, plead forgiveness and (they hope) move on. The idea is that the audience stops seeing them as cheats, liars and thieves, and instead as merely flawed individuals who say things like: “I’m doing my best to become a better human being”.

Most of it is absolute trash, and more about prolonging a star’s career than true regret.

Armstrong should be quizzed publicly by a judicial body rather than a celebrity billionaire with whom he’s shared recipes and appeared in colour-themed clothing.

Here are a few things Lance Armstrong should say to Oprah, but I’ll bet never will.

“I should not have denied seven other men the career-defining highlight of winning the yellow jersey in the Tour de France.”

“I should not have humiliated, abused and blacklisted journalists who dared to ask me questions about my doping because they only wanted the truth.”

“I will donate every cent I make from now on to paying back the funds fraudulently paid to me.”

“I will use whatever money I have to repay the honest cyclists robbed of prize-money through my cheating.”

And one for SA: “South Australian taxpayers, I should not have accepted millions of your hard-earned money to appear in the Tour Down Under because I wasn’t worth it.”

Finally: “I am a little man with a big ego and a weak mind. I am a fraud and a cheat and a liar. I did it all because I wanted to win at any cost.”

Now that would be an interview worth watching.

Most commented

72 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • craig2 says:

      06:08am | 12/01/13

      Trash him all you want but he WON 7 times while fueled up, just like many others of that same era. Being fueled up doesn’t take away the training required to ride the race nor does it take away the mental and physical pain when the lactic acid is burning for hours on end. Yes, he cheated but he was the best damned cyclist in the world for a long time and thats why I believe the Olympics should be a free for all, after all, who wants to see Erick the Eel performances?

      Reply

    • hawker says:

      07:27am | 12/01/13

      Are cheating and ‘Erick the Eel performances’ the only two options?

    • Seano says:

      08:18am | 12/01/13

      So early in the year but this has got to make it to the list for consideration as dumbest comment of 2013.

      In the tier behind all the blokes who were cheating (and have now been caught, or admitted their guilt) during the Armstrong era where blokes like Cadel Evans. The winner of the 2011 tour, an Aussie who races clean and is definitely NOT of the standard of Erick the Eel.

      Yes Lance was the best of the cheats but that only means he was good at cheating. Your vision of a drug free for all in sport would make it a contest between drug companies.

      I’d rather see blokes Cadel who push through the mental and physical pain rather than those that seek an easy way out. You may as well go watch people ride a stationary bike in a gym - part of the whole point of a race like the TDF is the mental and physical toughness needed to succeed.

    • Tim says:

      10:14am | 12/01/13

      I bet craig2 has a signed photo of him riding next to lance from a twitter-ride.

    • JD says:

      12:50pm | 12/01/13

      Dear Seano and Tim - you are absolutely kidding yourself if you think anyone who places in the top 100 in the TDF (or breaks 10 seconds for 100m sprints or other modern miracles of breaking through the pain barrier) is clean.  Cadel has been great for Australian cycling, but ask yourself why he faded in 2012 but not 2011?  These days athletes NEED to take drugs like steroids and epo to ensure they have a level playing field agianst their competitors.  Lance didn’t rob anyone of a TDF.  They were all on the gear.

    • Mouse says:

      06:12am | 12/01/13

      Ouch!  You really don’t like him do you Susie. I suppose all the cancer patients that have been helped by the Lance Armstrong Foundation should refuse any more help too, do you think?  While I never condone performance enhancing drug use in sports and can understand that others may have lost out on money and prestige because Lance beat them in races, I am not sure that the amount of distain you have for him is healthy! 
      Oh well, each to their own I suppose.  :o)

      Reply

    • nihonin says:

      07:30am | 12/01/13

      ‘I am not sure that the amount of distain you have for him is healthy!’ 

      When Lance is outed as a progressive the whole thing will be passed off as a misunderstanding or Lance was set up by those nasty (see Tea Party/Tony Abbott) conservatives and all will be forgiven.  wink 

      Hence the Oprah interview to start the ball rolling.

    • Seano says:

      08:25am | 12/01/13

      How many guys worked and trained their whole lives but where denied the opportunity to win a TDF because they decided to race clean? We’re lucky that Cadel Evans wasn’t past it by the time cycling finally started to clean up it’s act or we might never have had an Australian champion.

      To date Lance has in the face of irrefutable evidence refused to admit guilt or show any form of contrition whatsoever. I think his charity work is admirable but that does not take away from the fact that everything he has comes from being a cheat.

    • Note the "d" says:

      10:05am | 12/01/13

      Disdain for drug cheats and liars is very healthy.

      Unless you are a drug cheat or liar yourself, I guess.

    • Bear says:

      11:29am | 12/01/13

      Ni@ the Republicans in Texas are after him to run fir them. He’s from Texas where being a lefty is just about illegal. He’s one of you. You’re the side of cheats and liars!

    • RBarker says:

      12:21pm | 12/01/13

      In view of that other great donator to charity, Jimmy Savile, I can’t help thinking some talented but flawed people use charity as a smokescreen and a way to subconsciously convince themselves that it makes up for their wrongdoing, an antonement of sorts.
      It appears that Lance’s cancer was directly related to his drug taking.

      The grueling TDF has a long proud history of substances used to help cyclists on their way. Early photos show riders smoking and getting stuck into bottles of whisky. Amphetamines and cocaine were also widely used. I doubt the use of enhancements will ever be entirely eliminated, and it will always be unfair that some riders get nobbled and others don’t, however we need regular clear-outs so riders don’t kid themselves into thinking it’s normal practice, and to give the occasional clean rider a fair go.

    • CJ Johnson says:

      12:52pm | 12/01/13

      I hate to tell you, but The Lance Armstrong Foundation hasn’t “Helped” any cancer patients. It’s an Awareness charity, so all it does is tell everyone that Cancer exists.

      That doesn’t help any patients, all it does is make the bloke whose name is on the logo look good.

    • St. Michael says:

      04:27pm | 12/01/13

      “I suppose all the cancer patients that have been helped by the Lance Armstrong Foundation should refuse any more help too, do you think?”

      The problem with that straw man is that by taking it you logically identify yourself as having no problem with Labor or the Liberals taking brown paper bag donations from criminals.  After all, what does it matter where the money comes from?

      Like it or not, if you’d maintain integrity as a charity then who you’re willing to take money from matters.  That charity forever has to live with its funds having been obtained dishonestly, since Lance got his winnings dishonestly.

      And don’t forget that the fact you know Lance Armstrong made the donations because he didn’t demand anonymity for them.  It was conspicuous charity, meaning he got a substantial goodwill benefit out of his “charitable” measure in that he could point at the donation and say “See, I’m a good guy, I give money to sick kids.”  Indeed that was a profound PR tactic making it that much harder to raise issues with the honesty of his performances - because he could play the martyred saint.

      Not for nothing did Jesus Christ say you should donate in secret; conspicuous charity is a questionable good deed, if good at all.

    • nihonin says:

      06:54pm | 12/01/13

      ‘You’re the side of cheats and liars! ‘


      Bear, which side is that?  Personally I’m not on any side, but if you have insurmountable proof that I am, please provide it, here in the Punch for all and sundry to see.  I believe you can be a conservative progressive.  Unlike a few people who are just extremists and have nothing of value to offer other than name calling and foot stamping.  wink

    • acotrel says:

      06:33am | 12/01/13

      It is not rocket science to understand that ‘the system runs on bullshit’. Scratch the surface anywhere and you will find the disingenuous aspects.  Sensationalising Lance Armstrong’s cheating is like crying over corruption in NSW. It is institutionalised and entrenched at all levels. At least Armstrong and most of the rest of us are subject to regulation, not like the religous bodies in Australia, which often maintain a facade and operate sometimes in the shade, but receive special dispensation under our laws. It seems even the democracy requirements of the Corporations Act, don’t even apply to them, nor do the tax laws.

      Reply

    • Toady says:

      01:28pm | 12/01/13

      No, there is the stupidest comment of 2013, not the one above in the first thread.  One must assume your angle of attack is against the culture of pedophiles in the Catholic Church?  Name one priest who is immune from prosecution for sex crimes - just one will do.  And I notice you failed to include the union movement in your stupid rant - they appear to operate in the shade too, and funny how they are closely linked to that other dubious organisation the Australian Labor Party.

    • ramases says:

      06:36am | 12/01/13

      What Lance Armstrong has done is seriously called into doubt any American athlete who wins anything. We have had over the years several of them who used performance enhancing drugs but were smart enough to get out before the testing caught up with them, some went on to promote their sports but some died untimely deaths attributed to the use of these drugs.
        Whatever he has to say is not even worth listening to as the author said it will not get the truth or anywhere near the truth or the scale of the problem. The man doesn’t deserve a minute of air time to bleat about how sorry he is because he is not.

      Reply

    • acotrel says:

      07:42am | 12/01/13

      @Ramases
      ‘What Lance Armstrong has done is seriously called into doubt any American athlete who wins anything. ‘

      I would change that :
      What Lance Armstrong has done is seriously called into doubt any athlete who wins anything.

    • marley says:

      08:38am | 12/01/13

      I don’t think you can limit this to Americans.  The Russians and East Germans were notorious for doping in the Soviet era and on;  just about every nationality has been involved in doping in cycling (think Pedro Delgado Spain; Marco Pantani, Italy; Richard Virenque, France etc);  and of the four top finishers in the infamous 100m at Seoul, all four have at some time been found to have doped. 

      I doubt anyone really believes cycling is clean, or the Olympics are clean, and I doubt anyone thinks that only US Postal was cheating.

    • Sickemrex says:

      06:38am | 12/01/13

      I propose Jager shots for every non-taking-responsibility phrase.

      Reply

    • NSS says:

      10:24am | 12/01/13

      Ha! I’ll be in that..but make mine Bushmills.

      *DRINK!*

    • Rose says:

      11:41am | 12/01/13

      Better make sure you haven’t got any pressing engagements the next morning, you’re head is going to hurt…a lot!!

    • sunny says:

      11:50am | 12/01/13

      We’ll all be legless before the first ad break!

    • sunny says:

      06:45am | 12/01/13

      Or he might say “Damn it all to hell I nearly got away with it!”,  then stares ponderingly off into the distance and thinks out loud “I should have quit after the fifth yellow jersey and they would have been none-the-wiser”.

      One thing for certain - Oprah will be at her condescending guilt dispensing best.

      This whole episode raises a few valid questions though, for example I’m wondering if I can win the Tour De France if I take the right drugs (and trade up my mountain bike).

      Reply

    • Giannac says:

      08:42am | 12/01/13

      “One thing for certain - Oprah will be at her condescending guilt dispensing best.”
      .............................................................
      Plus the whole show will be so heavily orchestrated and edited, that it will be meaningless….other than to attract ratings.

    • sunny says:

      07:27am | 12/01/13

      “Sensationalising Lance Armstrong’s cheating is like crying over corruption in NSW. It is institutionalised and entrenched at all levels.”

      Yeah too right - my local library branch maintains a second set of ‘books’ and hides all their graft under an entry of Late Fees. We’re talking at least tens of dollars here. One of these day I’m going to the local newspaper with this and bust it wide open. Those librarians project a clean image but they’re rotten to the core ..just like Lance Armstrong.

      Reply

    • nihonin says:

      07:39am | 12/01/13

      mmmm Librarians, the true cougars.  wink

    • Seriously says:

      10:08am | 12/01/13

      uuuuugh, nihonin, the kind of creep that makes your skin crawl.

    • sunny says:

      11:57am | 12/01/13

      nihonin - yeah I always take my books back late in the hope that the Librarian will give me a good spanking. I’m always so disappointed when I get a fine but she misconstrues the reason I’m disappointed.

    • BC says:

      07:35am | 12/01/13

      You sanctimonious so and so.
      Lance Armstrong competed within the framework of professional cycling, and all that entails. If he didn’t test positive and was banned whilst competing, how can he later be stripped of his wins on hearsay alone? This is wrong.
      Armstrong trained harder than anyone for his 7 wins, that’s why he got them.
      He didn’t ride any other big tours and he would ride the course at least once a year in preparation. He was totally focussed on winning the Tour de France, much to the chagrin of cycling fans who would have loved to see him win the Big Three in one year(Spain, Italy and France) like the great Eddy Merckx, who everyone knows now, was on amphetamine. He wasn’t stripped of his wins.
      Armstrong had the edge over his rivals because he was a better cyclist and trained harder than anyone else. He was also a great champion. What about the time when his great rival Jan Ulrich fell on a fast mountain descent, and Lance waited for him to remount so they could continue their duel? Magic! Of course you won’t remember this Susie because you don’t follow cycling.
      ALL the cyclists in the tour are the best in the world. They have been riding and loving bikes since they were kids. Lance (and Cadel !!!) are that bit better than the rest.

      Reply

    • marley says:

      09:05am | 12/01/13

      Oh for heavens sake.  He wasn’t stripped on the basis of “hearsay alone” - he was stripped of his titles on the basis of first hand, eye witness testimony and a paper trail a mile long.

    • WADA says:

      10:01am | 12/01/13

      @marley
      When I was at the Olympics, I saw Bolt take a sip out of a water bottle that I’m sure contained a performance enhancing drug. It doesn’t matter that he didn’t test positive because:
      I saw it, which is first hand eyewitness testimony.
      I’ve made numerous newspapers and the sporting bodies aware of this and have done it in writing. My friends that were at the Olympics with me saw it as well as the other athletes. Together, we have a paper trail a mile long that documents our observations.
      Let’s strip Bolt of his Olympic medals, it fits all of your criteria.

      Unless you have tested positive through administration of a quantifiable drug test and those testing you have followed chain of custody procedure, you should not be convicted of doping. It’s really pretty simple marley.

    • Sickemrex says:

      11:55am | 12/01/13

      Cue yet another explanation of hearsay. Hearsay - marley told me he saw Lance Armstrong take drugs. Potentially admissible witness account - I saw Lance Armstrong take drugs. I was in the room when it happened. I know it was drugs because it did exactly the same. Etc. Sigh.

    • marley says:

      12:22pm | 12/01/13

      @WADA - That’s a ridiculous comparison.  All you saw was an athlete having a drink.  The rest is conjecture.

      Now, if you’d seen Bolt loading up a syringe with a prohibited substance, and injecting himself with it, then you have eyewitness testimony. l If you and your pals are asked by Bolt to bury his drugs and syringes in a French field, you have eyewitness testimony.  And if you have bank records documenting Bolt’s payments of substantial sums to a known provider of drugs whom he has said he has had not contact with, then you have a paper trail.

      And if you can’t spot the difference between your scenario and the actual evidence contained in the USADA documents, then you really haven’t looked at those documents, now have you?

    • marley says:

      12:25pm | 12/01/13

      @WADA - oh, and while we’re on the subject, Armstrong did test positive.  He lied to get out of it.

    • WADA says:

      01:45pm | 12/01/13

      poor marley just gets so confused. I guess that’s what happens when you try to put yourself forward as an expert in things you know nothing about.

      Armstrong never tested positive for drugs.
      Even in Australia, if you work on a mine site and a preliminary test shows a result, you are presumed positive. Notice the presumed? Only after your sample has been analysed by a pathology lab and a quantifiable result above a nominated amount is found can you be found positive. Because there are circumstances that can show a positive result that are not caused by the illegal taking of drugs (think cough syrup or antihistamine based products) a “positive” result can be referred to a medical doctor who can overrule a positive result. This is exactly what happened the one time Armstrong had an indication of a positive test. There are many cases of this in Australia alone with occupations that require mandatory drug taking having a test overruled by a consulting doctor.

      Armstrong was tested many hundreds of times and NEVER tested positive for drugs.
      My analogy is correct. Here’s another on for you.
      It’s like being stopped on the way home from a pub and being charged with driving under the influence, without any sort of a blood alcohol test.
      When you question why, the answer is because some people from the pub called and said you had too much to drink. You know, he was drinking from a glass with a clear liquid in it (your needle analogy) I’m sure it was vodka.
      You need a quantifiable amount of a banned substance to be found. period.
      Everything else is rumour and hearsay.

      “He lied to get out of it.” - that is your opinion. Obviously the sporting body responsible accepted the mediacal doctors finding, because he was not found positive.
      Who am I to believe, the medical doctor who reviews these cases, or marley the arm chair expert know-it-all?

    • marley says:

      06:06pm | 12/01/13

      @WADA - Armstrong never tested positive for drugs?  Well, I can remember a time when he was nicked for cortisone in his system, and he got a doctor to backdate a prescription for topical cortisosteroids.  Let’s see, 1999 I think.  He got away with it because he got a doctor to backdate a prescription.  That’s not my opinion, that’s the opinion of USADA, which Armstrong is not contesting.

      And no, your analogy is bullshit.  You see someone taking a drink, it’s meaningless.  One of his team members sees the athlete putting a drug into his drink, it’s evidence. That’s what this is all about.  And believe it or not, eyewitness testimony counts for something. 

      And I don’t think you actually grasp what this is about anyway..  It’s not just about Armstrong taking the odd EPO injection;  it’s about him running what was essentially a drug ring, forcing his team to take drugs, handling the liaison with suppliers, team managers, doctors and possibly officials.  There’s a bookload of evidence on that.

      Who are you to believe?  Not me. Read the USADA report, and the ICC decision.  And Armstrong’s non-defence of either finding.  And then learn the difference between criminal cases (beyond a reasonable doubt) and civil cases (preponderance of the evidence).

    • Carl Palmer says:

      07:56am | 12/01/13

      “You don’t spend years and years committing systemic fraud and then suddenly have a change of heart.” Right on the money Susie, well written.

      He is a cheat, liar, thief, pretender and I hope he’s taken to the cleaners by all of his sponsors and anyone else who gave this guy a cent.

      Reply

    • sir ronald bradnam says:

      07:56am | 12/01/13

      Several people in the cycling fraternity have said on numerous occasions that it is impossible to win the Tour de France without being on some form of blood doping or drugs that help your body recover quickly, impossible bar none, think of the implications to australian cycling of that.
      Also why blame just the riders when the team trainers, principles, sponsors and most officials have either encouraged and participated or at the bare minimum turned a blind eye.

      Reply

    • Seano says:

      09:04am | 12/01/13

      You mean several people who’ve been caught cheating don’t you?

    • NSS says:

      10:33am | 12/01/13

      What utter nonsense, Sir Ron. Impossible?Therefore all the winners prior to Armstrong from 1903 were doped up too? Just look at the absurdity of your statement. Not forgetting Cadel in the modern era and other clean riders like him.

      The sponsors probably carry some blame for putting pressure on their riders, agreed ,however ,I doubt they actually injected them. It’s like any junkie.Ultimately, the choice to cheat was theirs.

    • Rose says:

      11:46am | 12/01/13

      Maybe it was impossible to win without drugs when the bulk of the field was fuelled up, but take away the drug cheats and then you’re back on a level playing field again.

    • NSS says:

      11:52am | 12/01/13

      By the way, I do get your implication re Cadel. Prove it. this is truly hearsay and not any evidence at all.

    • Flutz says:

      08:10am | 12/01/13

      There is a reason Lance Armstrong chose Oprah for this interview, because it will not be the hard-hitting interview it needs to be.  It’s not just about what questions are asked, but the manner in which theya re asked and she will not push and probe and hold him to account the he needs to be held to account.  I was a long time supporter of Armstrong, I refused to believe that he could have got away with cheating for so long, refused to believed that after all the cancer treatment he would willingly put more drugs into his system; but (unlike most people) I have read in full the hundreds of pages of findings from the USADA investigation and what he did goes far beyond the use of performance enhancing methods to win bike races.  I still cannot fathom the extent of his actions and the ingrained systematic cheating that he not only engaged in but actively orchestrated.  Oprah is not the person that should be conducting this interview - she like the celebrity priest - they confess their “celebrity sins” to her and she unjudgingly forgives and absolves them instead of holding them to account; which is precisely why Armstrong (and many celebrities before and after him) chose her to do it.  I doubt I will watch the interview either - mainly because anything of note that comes from it will be played ad-infinitim on all the news shows for days following.

      Reply

    • Ben says:

      08:24am | 12/01/13

      I’ve an idea: how about we watch the interview and then comment?

      Reply

    • Jay2 says:

      08:41am | 12/01/13

      No doubt, Lance is a cheat and a liar. However I feel that during Lance Armstrong’s heydays, that he was the best in largely a field of ‘like minded’ to be honest.  The only people I feel truly sorry for are those select group who really rode the straight & narrow and the truly unsuspecting sponsors/public.

      Life is full of appalling hypocrisy : Shane Warne taking a reputed $200 grand for an anti smoking product and merrily puffing away;Tiger “aw shucks, I’m a family man” Woods;  Baseballs Sosa’s illegally corked filled bat; match fixing scandals soccer,cricket etc;; horse racing scandals; surfing ‘fixing’; car racing fixes & mechanical dossiers being passed on…...the list is endless.  A LOT of the faces involved made a boat load of money through sponsorship etc, but I cannot quite recall the feeding frenzy quite as fierce as it is towards Lance. I feel nothing short of his total destruction would satisfy some.

      Even many of of our politicians (rorting the system; child sex charges;etc) have done far worse I feel, than Lance Armstrong.
      This article’s tone should be directed at true scum of the earth, for example, Jimmy Savile for starters, corrupt pollies etc and that’s just off the top of my head.

      Reply

    • Gregg says:

      08:45am | 12/01/13

      ” He will probably blame his reliance on performance-enhancing drugs on his traumatic childhood. We’ll hear of his “secret shame”. “

      I reckon if there is any shame it is that he did not blow the drug taking into the open to allow more effort by authorities to thwart it.
      Like the guy was riding at a time when drug taking was prolific and just how marginal an impact on performance it is, we’ll never likely know, many drugs helping recovery from injuries sustained, some being minor soft tissue and muscular strains of which no doubt there are plenty in any sports including road racing.

      Drugs or to use the term of medication to assist with that side of performance is no doubt a boost to the sport in keeping top competitors performing.

      Whilst he has clearly been labelled as not just a cheat but one of the biggest ever in sport, I suspect not everyone sees him as an international laughing stock and does recognise that he still had to recover from cancer to perform at the highest of levels in what is probably the sporting event with most sustained performance required.
      He has also done a great deal of good with his charity work too.

      Reply

    • AdamC says:

      09:45am | 12/01/13

      It seems commenters this morning are dividing between those defending the indefensible and those being judgemental to the point of sanctimony. I am more in the latter camp than the former. However you cut the cake, Armstrong is a cheat, a liar and a disgrace to cycling. He also betrayed all of those people, and they are legion, who saw him as inspirational - an image he cultivated more enthusiastically and effectively than just about any other athlete in history.

      However, I do not buy that Armstrong was the architect of doping in cycling. The sport has been notorious for ages. And I am also sceptical of the claim that the sport is now clean. I suspect Armstrong, as a morally weak, overly ambitious human being, simply gave in to the temptation to cheat. No doubt the cheating and the lies got way out of hand, as they tend to with frauds. I also have no doubt that acclaim, adulation and unprecedented success - even tainted success - are about as addictive as crystal meth.

      Lance Armstrong is a bad man who did bad things. However, like all of us, he is entitled to get a second chance. Provided, of course, he owns up to his infractions and takes any penalty coming to him.

      Reply

    • pete says:

      09:58am | 12/01/13

      Yeah but who cares what a shrill mum, gasping for some airtime on the Today show thinks?

      Reply

    • JS says:

      10:07am | 12/01/13

      Decide what you think after you’ve heard what he has to say. We all make mistakes!

      Reply

    • marley says:

      12:23pm | 12/01/13

      We don’t all organize criminal conspiracies, though.

    • Rose says:

      01:30pm | 12/01/13

      Making a mistake isn’t quite the same as dedicating years of your life to a course of action which is illegal, immoral and incredibly deceitful.  Lance Armstrong did not ‘make a mistake’ he systematically cheated and assisted others to do the same, and he did it for years.

    • Kim says:

      10:09am | 12/01/13

      The charity work has been gained from a brand that is tainted though, as much as dye spoils a bag of cash from a bank robbery ; you can’t mutually exclude it from the Brand Armstrong, in which the nexus between fame, fortune, and philanthropy is clear and mutually interdependent.

      Reply

    • Yournamegoeshere says:

      11:57am | 12/01/13

      Right on Kim, the big lie with Armstrong isn’t the drugs it’s the charity.
      Google “livestrong outside magazine” and you can see the hundreds of millions raised goes to cancer"awareness” not research, support or prevention. It’s at best a PR machine funded by donations and at worst…. well a lot worse.
      Well worth a read

    • Andrew says:

      10:10am | 12/01/13

      There was another list and a cheat. Another person who won at the expense of a good man. Another person who made a career of lying. Who helped build a sophisticated fraud. Who brought the game into disrepute. Who abused and smeared those who highlighted the frauds.

      That person was Julia Gillard. The subprime minister of AWU, carbon tax. slipper and Thomson fame.  And you joined in the smearing last week of “Cadel.” You should be ashamed of yourself.

      Reply

    • vox says:

      11:50am | 12/01/13

      Andrew, Andrew, Andrew. Did you have to link the lying, cheating, fraud, Armstrong to Australian politics? Can’t help it, can you.
      You sound like the idiot earlier who said that despite the drug thing Armstrong trained harder, worked longer, and rode faster than any other cyclist on the Planet. But he forgot to add, if what he said was true, why he had to take drugs to win. Oh, because all of the others were taking performance enhancing drugs. Brilliant. Just think about it. Don’t you think Armstrong, who cares about no-one else would not have reported them. Clown!
      “But he did a lot of charity work and volunteered his time to doing worthy things”, they cry. That’s just a new variation on the ‘kissing babies’ routine. We even have a home-grown model of the same duplicious nature. They have been called ‘wolves in sheep’s clothing’ for centuries, although perhaps ‘a fox in rabbit’s clothing’ fits better on our domestic model.
      Think about how many people like Armstrong the druggie cover up their evil with “Good works”. Priests, Nuns, Mothers Superior, Bishops, Cardinals, Popes, Scoutmasters, Girl Guide Leaders, Staff in orphanages, Staff in Children’s Homes, Mothers, Fathers, Foster Parents, the list goes on.
      And I haven’t mentioned any of the rip-off millionaires who “give” to charity.
      No Andrew, the shame is all shared between you and the rest of the foolish, immature, gullible non-thinkers who have nothing to say but say it anyway.
      And who was the ‘good man’ she destroyed? The fire-fighting, (?), lifesaving,(?), truck-driving(?), photo-opping Leader of the Opposition, one Anthony Abbott? If so, for once you are right! She destroys him at every meeting. Well done, Andrew. Just for once you are 100% correct!

    • A real Andrew says:

      01:51pm | 12/01/13

      You are officially banned from the Andrew club for being a tosser; please chnage your name at the nearest Government office and save the rest of us Andrews’ from being tainted by your immature stupidity.

    • Ronnie says:

      11:50am | 12/01/13

      Susie O’Brien, this is an absolutely superb piece of writing telling it as it really is. Pity there are not more columnists like you! There is nothing really that I can add ... it’s all so brilliantly stated in your piece. Ma’am, I salute you!

      Reply

    • Ross A says:

      11:52am | 12/01/13

      I find it amazng that so many people point out the ‘irrefutable’ evidence of the USADA. If there was ‘irrefutable’ evidence, then LA would certainly have been charged, faced a criminal court and been found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Why has the USADA not pursued this towards a criminal conviction? After all, they say they have the evidence, so put it to the test. Are the USADA trying to cover something up by not testing it - e.g. are there senior people in the USADA who have been involved in the cover-up? It is unlikely one man could have achieved as much covering up as LA has allegedly achieved without some help. Oh, yes, there are numerous other athletes have likewise suggested LA took drugs. Of course, those athletes are themselves not entirely trustworthy, having themselves admitted to being part of what is considered the biggest drug programme of all time (though, that title seems to forget the experiences of the East German sporting team and the relatively lengthy period of a very masculine looking Chinese women’s swim team). Those same athletes also talked on the condition of essentially a ‘plea’ to get a limited penalty. So, their allegations are neither proven, nor sustained.

      From what has been in the media, I do suspect that there are serious questions over LA’s racing achievements. I do think that there are serious inconsistencies which need to be examined, and potentially very serious consequences all around - for the cyclists, for the administrators of the sports’ governing body, and for any government officials potentially involved in such a cover-up or cheating ring. However, to conclude that from this there is irrefutable evidence of guilt would be foolish. The media always has some sort of bias, and their game is to make money by sensationalising everything. We only need to look at the whole phone-hacking scandal in the UK, by a media organisation with significant international ties (including Australia and the US) to see how the media plays stupid, cheating, lying games also.

      Reply

    • marley says:

      12:49pm | 12/01/13

      @Ross A. - I don’t know that taking EPO or any other performance-enhancing drug is actually a criminal offence.  In any case, its up to federal prosecutors, not USADA, to pursue that angle.  I do know, however, that lying under oath is a criminal offence, and as I understand it, Lance is in deep do-do on that front because of testimony he gave in a lawsuit against on of his sponsors a few years ago.

      As to why USADA isn’t pursuing the matter - if you recall, Lance fought tooth and nail for an injunction to stop USADA’s investigation, and when the courts tossed out his request, he simply tanked on the whole thing.  USADA can’t force him to appear before them.  On the other hand, should he have lied under oath to a civil court, well, the courts can force him to answer for it.  It should be interesting.

      As to the media, they’re simply reporting the story.  Read the USADA report and tell me where they’ve got it wrong.

    • Oracle says:

      11:53am | 12/01/13

      He gave people what they wanted, superhuman performances.  All of his main rivals over the years all got done for doping and yet he the 7 time champion, you thought to be clean? How could you be so wilfully gullible and now act hurt?

      Reply

    • Lanced Boil says:

      11:53am | 12/01/13

      Geez, should we look past the crimes of Jimmy Saville because he raised millions for charity? Whilst doping and molestation are vastly different offences there is little else to seperate these two in my book. They used a position of absolute power to control and intimidate others.

      I’m looking forward to a Tiger Woods like apology and that strange feeling I get in my stomach when I see someone trying to defend the indefensible.

      Reply

    • Ben says:

      01:07pm | 12/01/13

      I too couldn’t abide the Tiger Woods interview, but for reasons different from yours. His transgression was - shock horror - rooting around and getting caught. To listen to him blubbering like he’d been caught stealing from the poor box was pathetic in my opinion. He’d have far more respect from me if he instead told the public that his sex life was none of their business. I’m just waiting for someone to roll out the “But he’s a public role model” argument.

    • JH says:

      12:15pm | 12/01/13

      Is he be payed for this interview?

      Reply

    • Marc says:

      12:53pm | 12/01/13

      You know, I might not watch Lance’s interview with Oprah either Susie. But, more likely, I won’t come back to read you next opinion piece either.  I haven’t read nearly enough about what Lance is accused of to be able to comment on his guilt, but I am positive that it was completely unnecessary to attack his character in such a way that insinuates this guy is the devil reincarnate, BEFORE the actual interview.

      Surely, surely, with so many heroes in the world right now eg the firefighters in Tasmania, you missed an opportunity to really write a meaningful article today.

      Reply

    • Big Deal says:

      01:38pm | 12/01/13

      I dont get it. All this carry on about some pin head on a pushbike. So he cheated. So what? Its only some stupid bike race. Did he kill anyone? Did he molest some kiddies? Steal an old grandmothers life savings?  Maybe rape some ladies? No. He just got more money provided by sponsers than he should of. Pffftt!

      Reply

    • David says:

      01:39pm | 12/01/13

      I never liked Lance during his hayday, arrogant, no grace, no charisma.. something was not quite right. Great arcticle Susie O’Brien.. live by the sword, die by the sword.

      Reply

    • Graeme says:

      01:47pm | 12/01/13

      Oprah at her best, making hay while the sun is shining. Be funny if absolutely nobody watched the show. Irks me that she has the hide to cash in, as well as all the sponsors that will part with millions in anticipation of profiteering from the massive ratings this show should project. I wonder if any of the money made from this folly will go to helping kids with cancer, or any other reputable charity for that matter. The old saying of money makes the world go round is never truer.

      Reply

    • Carol says:

      04:27pm | 12/01/13

      Are there any clean sports?
      Pain killing sprays, suplemented food and drinks, varying types of equipment paid for by governments or sponsors, the list goes on.
      Is any ‘sport’ played on an even field any more?

      But face it, we are not talking about sports men/women, we are talking about paid entertianers. Sport died years ago.

      Reply

    • Steve says:

      04:34pm | 12/01/13

      Don’t let any athlete take you for a ride. Nothing that occurs in sport is heroic. Do not worship them. Do not hold them in high regard. Don’t buy products just because they promote them. Sportsmen are nothing but entertainers that provide no useful service to society except to demonstrate that physical fitness is a useful attribute. Real heroes like Police, Fireys, Ambos, Medicos do their jobs everyday for crap pay and never have “sport journos” singing their praises every night instead of the news.

      Reply

    • Chain says:

      04:40pm | 12/01/13

      Lance who?

      Reply
 
Sorry, comments are now closed for this article.

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 20 May 13 10:07AM

RT @rdhinds: David Warner out for 2 in 5 balls. Now that's a real days work @malcolmconn and @crashcraddock1! #unrealopeners

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 20 May 13 10:05AM

Footy Show apologises for 20 years of irrelevant, boofheadish drivel... in our dreams. But the baby apol is a start http://t.co/oaDfGDMJBh

Malcolm Farr

farrm51 20 May 13 09:53AM

@katedoak Love the 'gay click' reference. Sadly my comment wasn't good enough to be recorded.

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 20 May 13 09:41AM

RT @newscomauHQ: Blackberry. Levis. Sony. @sarahmichael24 reports why brands are cool one minute, and cold the next. | http://t.co/3KJHXkVG…

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

by The Punch Team

385

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

by Hannah Harborow

122

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

by Sarrah Le Marquand

251

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter