Unfortunately, I am going to insist on having a life tonight and thus will not be able to watch part two of what has been broadly termed (though I, of course, thought I was the originator) "Doprah" interview with Lance Armstrong. I have to admit that I, along with pretty much everyone (based on the tweets directed at the interview and OWN which were flying fast and furiously), tuned in one way or another last night to hear what Lance could possibly say to (pick the one(s) you were anxious to hear)...
- exonerate himself
- apologize
- express remorse
- empathize
- ask forgiveness
- explain why he did it
- explain why he is talking NOW
...in light of the incontrovertible evidence that was amassed against him by the good folks at the USADA and many of his former friends and teammates. I was puzzled why Lance would choose a venue such as an Oprah interview for what I thought might be his mea culpa, but whatever...I was anticipating a good cleanse and some insight into what was and what is making the man tick.
Unfortunately, I came away with an even worse impression than that with which I sat down at my laptop (BTW, I didn't get any commercials watching the interview on-line, which in a way was kind of sad; I'd have liked to have seen who would line up as sponsors for this).
First, Oprah was certainly direct, asking specific questions and "yes" or "no" responses, and Lance complied. The only problem was that there was a weird, third person-ish element to it, like Lance was recounting something that happened and he observed rather than events in which he participated and which ultimately caused confusion, anguish, anger, and pain among so many former partners and friends. By asking for the simplest of responses, Oprah denied us the chance to see her - perhaps - try to wring some emotion out of Lance, or at least try to get into some depth on WHY he did what he did, how he FELT after, how he FEELS now, etc. I wonder if Oprah thought she was being smart in using this method or if Lance orchestrated this himself so he could appear to answer honestly but actually not even scrape the surface of his taught skin. Why is this troubling? Because WE ALL KNOW HE DID IT!!!
As staunch a supporter as I was a year ago, I absolutely came to the belief that he was guilty of doping. However, much like in baseball's recent steroid era, EVERYONE was complicit, and the league didn't have the tools to dig deep enough nor the balls to make a strong attempt. I'm not saying it was right...I'm just saying and accepting that it happened. So for me, the only thing left to understand is what Lance wants out of a confession now and how he intends to move forward, whether he could possibly repair any of the relationships he had with people or organizations, and what he and all of us might learn from this. And on this score, there was simply nothing.
Lance spoke arrogantly. He was measured, for the most part, and even though one could observe some body language and perhaps SLIGHT discomfort, the guiding principle of Lance's discussion was as follows: "I did whatever I had to do to win. Doping was part of the cost of doing business, and just like doing repeats up the Cols in France during the spring, doping became a repetitive exercise in which Lance became expert in all facets. He lined up a team, he created plans, and he executed flawlessly within the boundaries of what was possible to do and still not ever have a negative impact on his racing (medically or reputationally). Lance pissed me off in that interview, not because of his doping, but because not only did he not show remorse to his teammates, partners, fans, etc., not only because he didn't apologize to them (much the opposite, in some instances), he didn't let us get inside. And we like our apologists to really give it up before we re-accept them into society.
Lance was a bit vague on the timing of his doping with respect to its start date. Here's a huge moral dilemma: what if the combinations of drugs that he now seems to have been taking (key discrepancy and issue between what Betsy Andreu et al heard in the hospital and what Lance is revealing) were responsible for his cancer? Look, nothing changes what Lance has done to attempt to rid the world of cancer nor the benefits that that fight has accrued, but wouldn't this color his motives (there's a "yellow" joke in there somewhere)? I recognize that Livestrong can absolutely succeed beyond this and beyond Lance, but I think this forces some questions back on the man himself.
Maybe tonight, Lance will open the bike kit a bit more and let us see inside the actual man and not the "win at all costs" cyclist that sat in the chair and responded to Oprah. Maybe Oprah will ask questions in such a way as to force him to look inside and answer emotionally or personally before he answers factually. I actually doubt that either of these will happen, but I'll check in the morning. But assuming I am right, then the Lance Armstrong that can't see that the means did not justify the end, or at least can't deliver on even ONE of the bullet points above, no longer deserves my consideration.
It really IS about the dope...in the way that George Carlin once answered the question about whether there was a dope problem. "Yes," he said, "I think we have too many dopes."
No comments:
Post a Comment