Social Question

flo's avatar

What do you think of Oprah's interview with Lance Armstrong so far?

Asked by flo (7461 points ) January 18th, 2013

I heard only clips (from the 1st part) here and there.

-Why did he choose Oprah and not a hard hitting journalist?

-When she asked him “Did you feel that you were doing something wrong?” (paraphrase) was that like asking him if he psychopath/sociopath or was she giving him an out or, other?

-And if he said “I have no way of knowing that everyone was cheating, there must be some people who weren’t cheating” (paraphrase) then isn’t there a contradiction with “I thought I was leveling the playing field” (paraphrase)

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

19 Answers

Linda_Owl's avatar

Well, he definitely comes across as being totally ARROGANT.

blueiiznh's avatar

It took a lot of ball for Lance to admit that.

He is still an Ass

DigitalBlue's avatar

I haven’t seen or listened to them… and I’m not being facetious, but why do people care? Why is this such a big deal? I sincerely don’t understand.

gondwanalon's avatar

I haven’t seen the interview with Oprah but I have read everything that I can get my hands on about Lance Armstrong. In my opinion he is a liar, a fraud, a bully and a disingenuous and hypocritical SOB.

rooeytoo's avatar

I have to say I’m sorry he was not truthful. I really hoped someone was clean. That said, I don’t really think anyone is clean. There is too much money involved in professional sports of any ilk. Everyone out there is doing whatever they can (legally or illegally) to get their piece of the pie before they get too old, injured or whatever. Except Roger Federer and I would have said Lance, but I’m sure Roger is clean, the rest of them, I doubt it!

TheProfoundPorcupine's avatar

I watched the first part and the only thing that he is sorry about is getting caught. I saw a quote somewhere today how it came across as him telling a convenient truth and I agree with that as at times he kind of bodyswerved some answers, but I think everybody knows that there is more to it than he will ever let on.

He is still arrogant, he bullied people and tried to destroy the lives of those that dared to tell what ended up being the truth and in the process he lined his pockets with millions. I would love to see him interviewed by some of the journalists that he took to court instead of Oprah so that he was being asked questions by people that actually know about cycling and what went on as that would really be an interview worth watching.

tom_g's avatar

@flo: “Why did he choose Oprah and not a hard hitting journalist?”

Isn’t this the guy that rides a bicycle for a living? Whatever a “hard hitting journalist” is, I hope s/he isn’t spending any time on this. Oprah is a perfect venue for all kinds of big meanies who cheat at bike riding, or have cheated while playing Candy Land.

bookish1's avatar

I wasn’t sure if by “leveling the playing field” he meant in view of the fact that ‘everyone’ in cycling also dopes (which I have also heard but am not sure if it’s true), or in view of the fact that he had cancer and lost a nut.

In any case, this should come as no surprise to anyone.

I thought it was kind of funny, when he was listing out the substances that he took, that for one of them he made sure to specify “but only a little bit!” Like that made it better.

“It’s only wrong if you get caught.”~

flutherother's avatar

What disappointed me was that he showed no contrition whatsoever. He thinks and actually said that filling his body with drugs is the same as filling his bicycle tyres with air. He seems incapable of feeling guilt.

ucme's avatar

Didn’t watch it, but I caught a few highlights on the news & all I gotta say is the guy’s a scumbucket, not worth the energy.

burntbonez's avatar

I don’t really care what he has to say. The rules seem arbitrary to me. It’s up to the ruling body. If they are going to have rules, they better make them stick. If they can’t make them stick, they shouldn’t have them. This is more like drama than news. The sport is trivializing itself, which is too bad, because it is a beautiful sport. More beautiful than sport, if you ask me.

flo's avatar

Before I respond, I have to know, did he say anything that included the number 5?”.... 5 People…”

flo's avatar

I agree with most of you.

@DigitalBlue if you think it is not a big deal you could give the reason why.

@bookish1
“I wasn’t sure if by “leveling the playing field” he meant in view of the fact that ‘everyone’ in cycling also dopes (which I have also heard but am not sure if it’s true), or in view of the fact that he had cancer and lost a nut. No, I really don’t think so, just because he would have claimed that openely. He statred doping before the cancer didn’t he?

Besides even if everyone else was cheating (which I think is unlikely) it is not like they all would have taken exactly the same things, the same amount, the same quality of the steroids or whatever else

@burntbonez what are the arbitrary rules?

burntbonez's avatar

It’s arbitrary to say that you can’t dope, since you could have a level playing field either with doping or without it. There is no moral ground to make a distinction.

flo's avatar

@burntbonez It is no different from any other area of life. Besides, it is not like they all would have taken exactly the same things, the same amount, the same quality of the steroids or whatever else

burntbonez's avatar

You are right, @flo.

rooeytoo's avatar

What intrigues me is how they define “performance enhancing drugs.” You know there probably isn’t a single professional athlete who is not taped, shot up with some sort of “cane” to dull the pain, filled with caffeine tablets and sports drinks, etc. Now the shots for pain, including cortisone, to me are all performance enhancing since the athlete probably wouldn’t even make it to the game without them. It is sort of like booze vs. weed, one is legal and one you get in trouble for using. I am discovering that life is full of fine lines and the smart and crafty just manage to stay on the acceptable side. The other interesting point is that it took all these years to improve the testing to hang Armstrong, I wonder if 10 years from now it will show that so and so was using a banned substance but the testing was not at this point sophisticated enough to show it???

burntbonez's avatar

I totally agree with you, @rooeytoo. I wish I understood the moral logic (if there is any) behind these choices. It seems to me that people are reacting in a knee-jerk fashion without really thinking about the principles they want to stand on. It’s very sad.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther