Got up this morning and watched Part II. It was only 60 minutes compared to Part I 90 minutes, but it seemed like the ratio of commercials to content was a hell of a lot higher. As advertised, this was the more touchy-feely-weepy part of the interview. It pretty much confirmed my initial sense, and Armstrong basically said it explicitly, that he is still in the very early stages of recovery from a profound case of CAS (Chronic Asshole Syndrome). Probably the best illustration of this is that, while the story that elicited the tears was his having to tell his 13 year old son less than a month ago to "stop defending your Dad" when people write on his FB page that he is a cheater and a lier, he did not yet seem to have an appreciation that he should have been able to foresee that day 13 years (or 10 or 7) years ago and change his behavior to prevent having to hurt his own children. Winning, and being "Lance Armstrong", was more important to him than the well-being of his children.
This does provide, at least from his perspective, the answer to Kevin's question as to what is in it for him to confess. I had suggested two reasons - hoping to pave the way for some kind of deal to avoid or lessen future legal penalties and hoping to reduce his lifetime ban so that he can compete in sanctioned events. I am not as sure about the first reason as I was, but Armstrong himself stated the second, (he said something like "I'd like to run the Boston Marathon when I'm 50" (he is now 41) though also seemed to understand that even getting the bad reduced to 7 years or so is unlikely at this point. But the main reason, according to him, was to set the record straight for his children - so they did not have to deal with the only public statements from their father about this being lies. As the father of a 15 year old boy I can appreciate this, and I believe him, as far as he goes. He did not seem yet to understand at any genuine level that "coming clean" at this point, only after he was basically cornered and all but the truest of believers already had all the evidence they needed to conclude he was a cheat and a liar, is a lot less meaningful. The only really honest answer to the question: "Why confess now"? is that he got caught; if he had never got caught he would never have confessed, and if there was even a tiny credible basis to continue to deny the truth he would have, and allowed his son to continue to defend him. Under the circumstances confessing now seems like a no-brainer, and the only thing he can do. The only question for me is, would he have been better off waiting to make some kind of immunity deal or plea bargin with legal authorities first? But I suspect if there is a deal like that to be made, he still has enough leverage with all of his specific knowledge which he still really has not shared. He also shed some light on the question of why he made such a big deal of saying he did not dope after 2005, and of coure he did not bring up anything to do with statues of limitation: 1) he thinks improved testing made the sport cleaner, so that a clean racer could be on a level playing field (this basically is a rationalization and justification of his previous doping) and 2) he had promised his first wife that if he came back he would never dope again (I did not understand why he needed her "permission" for the comeback, since they seem to have already been divorced, but I guess it had something to do with the kids). It seems to be very important to him that he be seen as having kept this promise. I can only hope Barry Bonds does not decide to confess anytime soon so I can give myself a few years rest from ever having to see Oprah again. I have seen more than 4 hours of her in still young year of 2013 (Colbert, Letterman, Armstrong), and that is more than I have seen in the previous 5 - 7 years total (the Leno interview and I think the previous exchange of interviews between her and Dave). She was not nearly as bad as I thought she would be, but still pegged my obnoxious meter. It is easy to watch an interview and then take potshots at all the questions that were not asked (I think Dan Patrick was doing a lot of this on his show Friday morning). Oprah had clearly done her homework and knew the deep background on her subject - she clearly was not just reading questions prepared by assistants. She asked most of the important questions, and did not let him control the conversation or filibuster the time. A lot of people would have done a worse job. I do wish she had pushed him a little more about what, honestly he actually regrets about this situation. It seemed to me that he was most clear that he regrets not accepting the opportunity to reach some kind of negotiated settlement a few years ago, when he thinks he could have gotten a short term (6 month) suspension in exchange for his confession. It was clear that he thinks it is unfair that he got a lifetime ban (the "death penalty", as he calls it) when most other guys got much shorter suspensions. He still thinks he has been treated unfairly. And I suspect that he does not really regret the doping. He said it was not possible to win the Tour prior to (I think) 2006, and clearly winning that was more important to him than anything else. If he could, would he really go back and not dope, knowing that it would mean he would never win the Tour? I don't think so. -- 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
