Lance appearing on Oprah next week

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Unless Lance serves up the UCI he'll get no where with a confession. If anyone wants to blow up the sport so it can be fixed then its Lance. He's the only one who can do it.

On a plate that is, and, we all know that is not gonna happen.

Just beer and chips here. Laughing stock that wonderboy, Oprah, really.

 

[86TDFWinner]

Really? Whose asking the really essential question right now?
As far as I can tell no one.

No one is....no one who asks will get the right answer if at all. I mainly responded to it that way bc s/he was bragging a bit, and much of what s/he was saying had already been said pages and pages ago.

No one here on CN is on Wonderboys radar, he doesn't care about us, the mailman, or even his dog, he only cares about LANCE. Of course Harpo won't ask him "essential questions", she'll kiss his ***, like she does all her other guests.

 

[LutherB]

Betsy Andreu isn't hopeful about it:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ot...ong-easy-Oprah-Winfrey-says-Betsy-Andreu.html

 

[Jeremiah]

Oprah has been known to give those who have lied to her a very hard time when they come back on the show.

She annihalated author James Frey for just that. Check it out.

She must also know her own reputation is on the line.

The same people who swallowed Frey's book as fact are the people who believed Armstrong.

Actually Frey's book had some redeeming aspects on the nature of addiction. I'd argue that his small contribution to the discourse may be greater than Oprah's voluminous contributions.

Any scrutiny at all showed both of their supposed exploits were fiction. Bottom line, Oprah was an idiot for swallowing the Frey story too..

James Frey was a contrite wuss. If she gives Lance a hard time he will push right back.

which would be a great ploy to reveal his viciousness and the nature of his mental pathology.

 

[Jeremiah]

No one is....no one who asks will get the right answer if at all. I mainly responded to it that way bc s/he was bragging a bit, and much of what s/he was saying had already been said pages and pages ago.

No one here on CN is on Wonderboys radar, he doesn't care about us, the mailman, or even his dog, he only cares about LANCE. Of course Harpo won't ask him "essential questions", she'll kiss his ***, like she does all her other guests.

I'm going to call bs on this. Just because Armstrong is only concerned about himself doesn't mean that he's not aware of who his detractors are including his many on CN. He's had public spats with many over the internet including more than a couple of the esteemed members here...

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Betsy Andreu isn't hopeful about it:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ot...ong-easy-Oprah-Winfrey-says-Betsy-Andreu.html

Betsy rules, she is hardcore. Respect to her.

 

[Fatclimber]

I'm going to call bs on this. Just because Armstrong is only concerned about himself doesn't mean that he's not aware of who his detractors are including his many on CN. He's had public spats with many over the internet including more than a couple of the esteemed members here...

That is a good point, although I don't believe these interactions were anything more than an attempt to steamroll those involved like he has to any challenger throughout his life. All ego. He is well aware that the opinions of RR, Chewie & others will never be altered. His PR and manipulation will not be directed at them

 

[86TDFWinner]

Detroit columnist Drew Sharp gives his opinion on Wonderboy:

Drew Sharp: Lance Armstrong's talk with Oprah is about PR, not journalism
January 13, 2013 |
Lance Armstrong goes on trial this week.

And Oprah Winfrey will serve as judge, jury and either executioner or absolver.

It's no surprise that a talk-show host becomes the arbiter in whether the public ultimately forgives or foregoes the disgraced former cycling champion. In this era of microwaveable celebrity in which a beauty queen becomes an overnight sensation solely because a football broadcaster breaks the news to a national audience that she's, you know, beautiful, it's only natural that Armstrong seeks the benediction of the country's communicator-in-chief.

If Oprah cuts you slack, then it's only a matter of time before everybody else follows.

But it's staged news.

It's not an attempt at journalism. This is public relations.

Armstrong made the smart move, agreeing to a 90-minute taped interview with Oprah, which will air on her OWN cable network Thursday. It no doubt will be well watched.

Late Friday, USA Today reported Armstrong will admit he cheated. The U.S. Doping Agency produced damning evidence in October linking Armstrong to using banned substances and receiving illegal blood transfusions. The agency stripped Armstrong of his seven Tour de France titles and hit him with a lifetime ban from cycling competition.

The far-reaching story emerging from any Armstrong confession will be the decimation of any alleged sports doper's alibi that he never failed a drug test, so he must be clean. That Armstrong could perpetrate a fraud of this magnitude for as long as did -- considering all the attention and suspicions following him -- reaffirms that the ever-advancing technology in helping athletes hide their ill-gotten enhancements makes it impossible to believe any clean drug test.

For instance, Armstrong's confession doesn't help baseball work its way out of its steroids history. And why should anybody ever believe an athlete again if Armstrong lied?

That's what the Oprah interview should be about; instead it'll probably be an attempt at painting Armstrong as a repentant sinner. I'm sure he'll tear up on cue expressing his regrets for letting down those who saw his life story -- from testicular cancer survivor to cycling's grand champion -- as an inspiring tale of unrelenting will.

And if the camera catches Oprah in one of her famous "We feel your pain, honey" facial expressions, millions watching will sympathetically sigh and the public-relations ploy will succeed in portraying him as someone seeking the road to salvation. Don't forget that this is less about Armstrong making amends but rehabilitating a tainted image that cost him his cycling titles and his connection to his cancer awareness foundation.

He found the right forum. Tiger Woods' first move after his sex scandal three years ago should've been arranging a seat next to Oprah.

She has become this generation's Walter Cronkite, capable of massively shifting public sentiment.

It was the late CBS anchorman's pointed commentary 45 years following the North Vietnamese's Tet Offensive in which he argued in a rare editorial that the U.S. couldn't win the Vietnam War. President Lyndon B. Johnson famously said afterward that if he lost Cronkite, he lost Middle America.

Not long afterward, LBJ opted not to run for re-election in the 1968 presidential campaign.

The influential weight of such iconic figures remains as strong almost five decades later. It's what's being influenced today that leaves much to be desired.

 

[D-Queued]

Betsy Andreu isn't hopeful about it:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ot...ong-easy-Oprah-Winfrey-says-Betsy-Andreu.html

And more great input from Betsy, offering five very well chosen questions:

Betsy Andreu, victim of many attacks from Lance Armstrong, plays Oprah and tells News what she would ask cyclist at sit-down

1. Will you admit that the hospital incident happened and will you describe it in detail?

...

2. Did you intimidate or tamper with witnesses who implicated you in doping?

...

3. Why did the U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California, Andre Birotte Jr., shelve the federal investigation into allegations that you were involved in defrauding the government, drug trafficking, money laundering and conspiracy?

...

4. Do you know if the investigation was ended for political reasons?

...

5. How do you plan on undoing the damage you did to people, especially those who were your friends, people like Frankie?

Dave.

 

[86TDFWinner]

Both Wonderboy & Trek should cut HUGE checks to LeMond, Betsy and a bunch of other folks.

 

[Page Mill Masochist]

Detroit columnist Drew Sharp gives his opinion on Wonderboy:

She has become this generation's Walter Cronkite, capable of massively shifting public sentiment.

Ridiculous comparison by Drew Sharp. Shoddy analysis. When Walter Cronkite reigned, most of America watched the evening news. There were three choices: CBS, NBC and ABC. There was no cable TV, no internet.

Oprah's channel is watched by 1 out of 400 Americans, on average. She might hit 1 out of 100 Americans with Lance if she's lucky. Her demographic is not very influential.

Drew Sharp also ignores other obvious points.

What do you think the second day reaction will be to the Oprah interview, if Lance is anything less than candid? The press now hates the guy, with only a handful of exceptions. The mockery will be widespread and loud.

And what happens after Oprah? A scandalized active athlete has a platform -- think of Ray Lewis. Lance, though, is barred from competition. Where is Lance's platform?

Finally, does anyone think Oprah will bring Nike, Trek, etc. back into Lance's income stream? These companies won't dare take a chance on Lance.

 

[blackcat]

but the opinion acts as amplifier, multiplier. to say she does not have influence is silly too.

 

[Bosco10]

Ridiculous comparison by Drew Sharp. Shoddy analysis. When Walter Cronkite reigned, most of America watched the evening news. There were three choices: CBS, NBC and ABC. There was no cable TV, no internet.

Oprah's channel is watched by 1 out of 400 Americans, on average. She might hit 1 out of 100 Americans with Lance if she's lucky. Her demographic is not very influential.

Drew Sharp also ignores other obvious points.

What do you think the second day reaction will be to the Oprah interview, if Lance is anything less than candid? The press now hates the guy, with only a handful of exceptions. The mockery will be widespread and loud.

And what happens after Oprah? A scandalized active athlete has a platform -- think of Ray Lewis. Lance, though, is barred from competition. Where is Lance's platform?

Finally, does anyone think Oprah will bring Nike, Trek, etc. back into Lance's income stream? These companies won't dare take a chance on Lance.

So true. Comparing Oprah to Cronkite is a stretch. Oprah did have more influence on her syndicated mainstream network show, but even then she faded over the years. Her new show is hardly a blimp on the radar.

 

[blackcat]

I preferred Phil Donahue, and he was even better with the earing

 

[trailrunner]

She has become this generation's Walter Cronkite, capable of massively shifting public sentiment.

Cronkite is rolling over in his grave.

Cronkite's belief that the US could not win the Vietnamese war was made after he visited the country, and after a lot of hard journalism coupled with soul-searching. His opinion was the independent voice that the conflicted and confused country trusted.

To compare Oprah's interview of a washed-up bike racer to Cronkite and that famous broadcast is insulting to Cronkite.

 

[Oldman]

but the opinion acts as amplifier, multiplier. to say she does not have influence is silly too.

Had a telling conversation today that validates much of what you say. An intelligent friend that has always been a Armstrong stallwart was eager to see the interview. "Everyone deserves a shot at redemption..." was how he finally acknowedged that Lance cheated. He had also bought into the "statute of limitations will prevent him from doing any time" justification for putting all other niggling issues like money laundering, drug trafficking, extortion, etc. onto the shelf of not-proven crimes. He also seemed convinced that Lance could negotiate his way into some level of competition again.
Oprah is an excellent springboard for exposure to the public that seeks simple answers to their limited attention span. If she chooses not to suck up it could be extremely damaging to that demographic's acceptance of a redemptive Oedipus Tex. If she lobs him softballs it may serve to rally public sentiment to some level making further Federal investigation politically unpalatable; insert "waste of money" argument. As much as the cynics here suspect this will be a puff piece; it could also serve a larger agenda of keeping his aging azs out of much more serious criminal trouble. His civil matters aren't going away but that may prove to be manageable as those are about money and can occur behind the scenes.
Pete Rose appeared on ESPN and was appropriately contrite about his sins but still had a mock innocence when he wondered aloud why the MLB Commissioner hadn't given him a call regarding the Hall of Fame. He felt that nothing he did should prevent him from his due as a player. The egos and need for recognition never go away and Lance may always be around.

 

[rhubroma]

No one is....no one who asks will get the right answer if at all. I mainly responded to it that way bc s/he was bragging a bit, and much of what s/he was saying had already been said pages and pages ago.

No one here on CN is on Wonderboys radar, he doesn't care about us, the mailman, or even his dog, he only cares about LANCE. Of course Harpo won't ask him "essential questions", she'll kiss his ***, like she does all her other guests.

He wasn't bragging, but just communicating a confirmation of a previsioned outcome, based on what was reported in the news. I realize that that was not revolutionary, or even earth shattering, however, what needs to be exposed is the complete nature of the deception and fraud.

Yet nobody wants to go there, it's too BIG as they say, even after all this, the full truth won't come out. What a shame. There are national interests at stake, one would assume.

 

[MarkvW]

Cronkite is rolling over in his grave.

Cronkite's belief that the US could not win the Vietnamese war was made after he visited the country, and after a lot of hard journalism coupled with soul-searching. His opinion was the independent voice that the conflicted and confused country trusted.

To compare Oprah's interview of a washed-up bike racer to Cronkite and that famous broadcast is insulting to Cronkite.

Cronkite was a cheerleader for that war. Finally--finally--he realized that he was being lied to by the generals and politicians that he had so carefully parroted for years. Cronkite was a talking head, a newsreader, and a nice paternal image. But he wasn't any kind of a journalist. The comparison with Oprah doesn't bother me at all. David Halberstam . . . now there was a journalist. Halberstam, were he still alive, could have eviscerated Armstrong (just like he eviscerated Harkins).

But all this dialog really misses the point. Sure, you could have an interviewer take on Armstrong with a lot of challenging fact questions. And Armstrong would stonewall that interviewer on all those questions. He'd shut him or her down with "my lawyer's advised me not to answer that question" and that would be that. All you'd have are a whole bunch of pregnant questions without any good answers. You'd have a whole bunch of unanswered fact questions.

But Oprah is not going to operate solely in the literal, black and white, concrete world inhabited by some of my favorite Clinic denizens. She operates--indeed she excels--in the emotional realm in addition to the factual realm. If anybody is going to peel back Lance's invention and artifice and show a "true" aspect of his personality, it's Oprah. And even she might fail, because Lance is a better liar than even Hitler was.

I think Lance is laying the groundwork for his book. That future book is probably why Sally Jenkins lingers lovingly and loyally by Lance.

 

[johnsiviour]

Cronkite was a cheerleader for that war. Finally--finally--he realized that he was being lied to ... ... But he wasn't any kind of a journalist. The comparison with Oprah doesn't bother me at all. David Halberstam . . . now there was a journalist. Halberstam, were he still alive, could have eviscerated Armstrong (just like he eviscerated Harkins).

...

...But Oprah is not going to operate solely in the literal, black and white, concrete world inhabited by some of my favorite Clinic denizens. She operates--indeed she excels--in the emotional realm in addition to the factual realm. If anybody is going to peel back Lance's invention and artifice and show a "true" aspect of his personality, it's Oprah. And even she might fail, because Lance is a better liar than even Hitler was.

I think Lance is laying the groundwork for his book. That future book is probably why Sally Jenkins lingers lovingly and loyally by Lance.

Agreed. Softly Softly catchee monkey.

"Closer" technique comes to mind. Given Oprah opens with "emotion" based questions...

"How did you feel when you were first quizzed about taking PEDS?"

....More truth, emotional/factual about LA, may be revealed, than by any hard hitting direct frontal assault.

I am hopeful, but skeptical of a positive outcome.

 

[Jeremiah]

That is a good point, although I don't believe these interactions were anything more than an attempt to steamroll those involved like he has to any challenger throughout his life. All ego. He is well aware that the opinions of RR, Chewie & others will never be altered. His PR and manipulation will not be directed at them

The PR and manipulation will only work with the decreasing number of kool aid drinkers, none of whom have any power. People like Clinton will not do any more favors for him.

I suspect this Oprah interview will backfire terribly on Armstrong at the very least opening him up to much more widespread mockery..

Anyone who likes their credibility will shun Armstrong like the plague. Oprah better get tough with him or she could destroy any of her remaining relevance.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Oprah is an excellent springboard for exposure to the public that seeks simple answers to their limited attention span. .

I'm counting on a total lack of acting skills turning it into a fail. Unless it's a personal attack, he can't play it. But, many Americans seem to enjoy being treated with contempt by other percieved as more powerful. It could still work out well for Wonderboy's team.

Drew Sharp has Oprah about right. She can shift the story. But, not too far. The comments everywhere are really consistent and encouraging except for a few outliers still trying to hide behind the cancer shield.

I also agree it may be a pre-emptive shot at limiting damages. Landis' case has Wonderboy's team spooked. There may be more coming.

 

[TexPat]

I'm reminded of one of my favourite writers, TS Eliot, who wrote,
"This is the way the world ends. Not with a bang, but a whimper."
To this I would add, a weak, insincere whimper.

 

[frenchfry]

I'm reminded of one of my favourite writers, TS Eliot, who wrote,
"This is the way the world ends. Not with a bang, but a whimper."
To this I would add, a weak, insincere whimper.

Good to hear from you TexPat.

I think you could be right here. Wonderboy was stuck between a rock and a hard place. Either he waits out the storm, risking sinking into total obliviation, or he attempts to restore his waning image with a "whimper", risking derision and mockery.

I would guess he made the decision to weasel his way back into the limelight because otherwise his cancer "charity" based income stream was at imminent risk of disappearing completely. We will know soon if this strategy works or backfires, but for now the press is remaining quite negative with regards to all things Armstrong.

 

[The Barb]

As a lighter aside, I see Ladbrokes is offering odds of whether he will mention certain words or phrases (although they won't let you put much on). I've had $20 on "Floyd Landis" for a bit of interest.


Cycling / Cycling Specials - Lance Armstrong to mention any of these phrases

Livestrong 1.12
Sorry 1.25
Apologise 1.25
Confess 2.00
Conspiracy 1.50
Innocent 2.00
David Walsh 3.00
Paul Kimmage 3.00
Sunday Times 5.00
British press/media 5.00
Witch hunt 3.00
Integrity 2.50
Never tested positive 2.00
Team Sky 9.00
Bradley Wiggins 5.00
Sir David Brailsford 9.00
USADA 1.66
WADA 2.50
Tour de France 1.12
Floyd Landis 5.00
Tyler Hamilton 2.50
George Hincapie 5.00
Johan Bruyneel 5.00
Dr. Ferrari 2.00
EPO 2.50

 

[mountainrman]

As a lighter aside, I see Ladbrokes is offering odds of whether he will mention certain words or phrases (although they won't let you put much on). I've had $20 on "Floyd Landis" for a bit of interest.


Cycling / Cycling Specials - Lance Armstrong to mention any of these phrases

Livestrong 1.12
Sorry 1.25
Apologise 1.25
Confess 2.00
Conspiracy 1.50
Innocent 2.00
David Walsh 3.00
Paul Kimmage 3.00
Sunday Times 5.00
British press/media 5.00
Witch hunt 3.00
Integrity 2.50
Never tested positive 2.00
Team Sky 9.00
Bradley Wiggins 5.00
Sir David Brailsford 9.00
USADA 1.66
WADA 2.50
Tour de France 1.12
Floyd Landis 5.00
Tyler Hamilton 2.50
George Hincapie 5.00
Johan Bruyneel 5.00
Dr. Ferrari 2.00
EPO 2.50

Thanks for the heads up.
Ladbrokes will lose their shirts over this.
They will get creamed - since some of those phrases are bound to come up - and the outcomes unlike a bike race horse race are not mutually exclusive.
They should have backed the first of those phrases to come up, not whether they will come up at all. Even at 4/6 USADA is a certainty - in 90 minutes
Maybe SCA or USPS should bet on the phrase SCA or USPS to get all their money back easier!
A horrible thought but lance could bet on all of them to have some income this month.
AND they are giving a £50 free bet on new accounts: I am just checking to see if it can be used for this!