pmcg76 said:Has anyone else on here been struggling to explain to their non-cycling friends why Armstrong was so much worse than other dopers.
One example, the Simeoni chase-down. Now every cycling fan knows why what Armstrong did went against the unwritten rules of the sport and was an incredible piece of nastiness and vindictiveness but try explaining that to those who don't understand cycling in a few sentences......it's not easy.
Or why the Vrijmen report didn't really clear Armstrong of doping!!
What we take for granted is not easily explained to the general public as they know so little about cycling. The general public think Armstrong is being treated unfairly because he is the first athlete to be convicted of doping without a positive test FFS.
I agree that Oprah is about getting the general public onside which has always been Armstrong's ruse. Get the masses on your side and you will be in a strong position.
It's all about rebuilding his persona in the eyes of the US public, to make him a marketable character again. He'll have squirreled away as much of his cash as possible to avoid it being claimed by the plethora of law suits any admittance will bring. The narrative will run about what a trememndously talented natural athlete he was, but having survived cancer and realising you only live once he arrived on a drug-riddled European tour where he had to dope to compete. Since everyone was doping he was still the best and deserves his wins. The bullying and intimidation will be glossed over and instead his charity legacy will be stressed. It will be stage managed, he'll know beforehand the questions he will be asked and will have rehearsed the answers.
It will be all about the good ol' boy from Texas who was corrupted by nasty cheating foreigners. A bit like Chris Brown the establishment will forgive him and encourage the public to do the same so everyone can start making money from him again.