On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 1:27 AM, Adam Bowie <[email protected]> wrote:
> Having now watched the interview (Discovery UK simulcast it at 2am this > morning UK time, but I recorded and watched at 7am), I'd say that NYT story > is accurate. We didn't really get any specifics or mechanics about how he > did it, how often he did it, precisely what drugs he was using and how he > took them, the places he visited, the technology he used or anything. Those > would be the details, and they're the kinds of things that Tyler Hamilton > addressed in his book. > > That all said, I was surprised at just how much he did admit to. He only > seemed to squirm when asked to implicate others, and around the Betsy > Andreu story from '96. > > I can't see how he's not going to face a barrage of legal actions against > him. While some might leave him alone - Nike for example - others will very > much go after him e.g. The Sunday Times who he sued and won $1.5m from. > (SNIP) > I agree with you Adam, both about the lack of specifics, and the amount that he admitted to (at least superficially). In watching some of the clips again this morning on the news programs, I realized something I did not when I watched the interview last night - Armstrong never did answer the question that he himself said was the best and most important: Why is he admitting all of the doping now, after spending so much time and effort denying it for 15 years? He says something like "first of all, its too late, and that is my fault", and then I think they go down some other paths, but as I think about it now I can not recall him ever coming back to giving a specific answer to that question. I think that is significant because it helped him avoid addressing directly how much he really thinks he was wrong. The only honest answer to that question is that he came forward now because of the detailed report that removed any reasonable doubt among all but his most fanatical supporters about his guilt, causing pressure on him from his foundation and sponsors to come clean. Several times in the interview it seemed to me he came close to saying something like "if it had not been for X (for example, that one teammate who rode in all 7 Tours whose name I can't produce off the top of my head, or for the unfair fixation on him from regulatory authorities, or if he had not tried to make his comeback and thus piss off some former teammates who thought it was their turn), then he would "not be here right now" and he would, basically, have gotten away with cheating and would never have had to admit it. And he did not say these things in the spirit of "I'm really glad X happened, because it finally forced me to be honest with myself and the public". It was in more or a rueful spirit, as if the factors that eventually forced him to be honest were just part of the challenges, like testicular cancer, that he has had to face and deal with. This is all part of the denial and defensiveness that did strike me most last night. He said at least a half a dozen times something like "I take responsibility for that" or "its on me" - as if there were mitigating factors that really spread much of the blame around, but he knows he is supposed to be the one to accept the responsibility for the scandal. You hear the same thing from wife-beaters, who learn at a certain point that they have to take responsibility for their actions, but are always just a breath away from blaming their wives for being so unreasonable or irrational or incompetent that they had to hit them. -- 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
