On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 8:56 PM, Kevin M. <[email protected]> wrote:

> Per Time magazine's collection of quotes from Lance:
>
> “I went and looked up the definition of cheat,” he added a moment
> later. “And the definition is to gain an advantage on a rival or foe.
> I didn’t view it that way. I viewed it as a level playing field.”
>
> As do I.
>
>
> http://keepingscore.blogs.time.com/2013/01/17/armstrong-admits-doping-to-oprah/


Except, that is not the definition of cheating, or at least not the only
definition. The free online Webster includes the following definitions of
"cheat":

***********
"transitive verb
1: to deprive of something valuable by the use of deceit or fraud; 2: to
influence or lead by deceit, trick, or artifice;
intransitive verb
1: to practice fraud or trickery
b : to violate rules dishonestly <cheat at cards> <cheating on a test>"
*************

I don't much like using dictionaries for this purpose, but it illustrates
what I thought was the most glaring aspect of Armstrong in the interview -
he has only taken a few baby steps out of denial. One can understand why,
at the time, he did not perceive what he was doing as cheating - like every
other user of banned substances, he rationalized what he was doing by
emphasizing the fact (true enough) that everyone else was doing it (or at
least enough of his competitors were doing it so that if he did not, he
would be at a disadvantage). But it was clearly cheating - it was a knowing
violation of the rules, and required extensive and repeated and blatant
deceit.

I worked for a while at an in-patient drug and alcohol unit at a Veterans
Administration Hospital, and most of my patients were long term, hard core
addicts and alcoholics. The first couple of weeks almost all of them said
the "right" things in group about their use. You could usually tell that
this was superficial because while they could deal with it in the abstract,
whenever we brought it something specific, and important to them, they
would find little ways to hem and haw and distance themselves from it -
often getting into long intellectual and hyper-rational monologues
splitting hairs to show why in that case it did not really apply to them.
My supervisor taught me (correctly I learned) that the most effective
intervention when these guys mouthed cliches they knew sounded right but
did not yet understand, was to, literally, call "bullshit" on them. Often
this elicited high levels of hostility and anger, and sometimes physical
aggression. But most of the guys who ever really kicked it went through
that anger and came out on the other side with a deeper understanding of
the cliches they had learned to spout out. I don't expect that Oprah could
call bullshit on Armstrong (and, all things considered, I thought she did a
pretty good job in the interview) but that is what he still needs. He may
get there eventually, but it will take more than a couple of hours on
Oprah's couch.

I found the interview fascinating (I would love to see my own fallen sports
hero, Barry Bonds, begin the process by being even half as transparent as
Armstong was). He admitted doping in all 7 Tours, admitted lying about it
repeatedly and managing a complex conspiracy to avoid detection, and he
admitted at least some instances of bullying. He did seem to use his
reluctance to call out other people as an excuse to avoid getting into a
lot of detail - but his real opportunity to do that will be with sports
governance and legal authorities.

Lance Armstrong is a liar, a cheat, and a bullying asshole. Tonight he
seemed to understand about 20% of that fully, which is a hell of a lot more
than he has done for most of his career. I would give him a 50-50 chance
(maybe a bit less) of continuing the process, but even the start is better
than nothing.

-- 
TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en

Reply via email to