Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Lance Armstrong: The Expected

When the interview is aired, we will cover it. 

The expected from Armstrong:

1.  Minimization
2.  Deception regarding frequency and intensity of use
3.  Sharing of blame with lots of pronoun, "we" and "us", rather than "I"
4.  Attempt to emotionalize his crimes
5.  Blame others

Since he has hurt so many others, expect the pattern to continue.   He may now become a whistleblower and continue to hurt others. 

Keith Ablow on Fox:

Lance Armstrong, stripped of his seven Tour de France titles due to allegations of using performance enhancing drugs and lying again and again about it, was expected to finally confess his drug use. He sat down with Oprah Winfrey Monday for an interview scheduled to air on her network on Thursday night.  Now, Oprah has revealed that Armstrong didn’t “come clean” in the way she had hoped or expected he might.
There is, in fact, a way to know whether Armstrong is finally telling the real and complete truth about his use of drugs.  He would have to admit it, first of all.  But, then, he would have to tell us why.  
In psychological mysteries like the one in which Armstrong is the lead character, what happened is important, but why it happened is much more important.
Only if Armstrong were to tell us that, in a way that took our breath away and answered every question one could ever ask of him, about why his life became a fraud, could a good listener really be satisfied that he or she had heard the truth.  
Why did Armstrong break the rules of his sport?  Why did he deny the charges against him for decades? Why did he disparage those who tried to reveal the facts about him and international cycling.
If you listen to or watch Lance Armstrong’s interview with Oprah and don’t come away satisfied that you understand, at the deepest level of your heart, why Armstrong became a fraud, racing against truth to capture trophies and accolades and fame and money that were not rightfully his, then—even if he documents every performance enhancing drug he ever took and when—he will have confessed nothing very important.
In cases like this one, authentic answers to the question why are always intensely personal, by the way.  They relate to the confessor’s life story—and usually very early chapters.  So, no amount of finger-pointing at other athletes or at cycling officials should pass for the truth coming from Lance Armstrong.  Such words would have no power to reach past your mind, to your heart.  They would not inspire real empathy and understanding, because they wouldn’t reveal where and how Armstrong himself is actually weak and broken and flawed—and how he got that way.
Only if Armstrong were to tell us that, in a way that took our breath away and answered every question one could ever ask of him, about why his life became a fraud, could a good listener really be satisfied that he or she had heard the truth.  
If Armstrong, for example, in tears, were to say (and I am making all this up), that he had been the victim of brutality as a child, that his family were posers who looked good in public and became monsters in private, that they set the stage for him believing that everyone is fraudulent and that trying to have integrity is folly, then he would have my attention and my empathy.  
If Armstrong were to tell us (again, I am making all this up) that he had been bullied relentlessly as a kid and had thought of suicide and that being strong and undefeatable came to mean everything to him—that racing through life wearing the mask of success and invulnerability seemed like his only option—then he would have my attention and my empathy.
Neither answer to the question about why he did what he did would excuse Armstrong.  But it would explain him.  And when people explain themselves in ways that speak to their human weaknesses and their pain and their fears getting the best of them, they are speaking the language of truth and they are testifying to a newfound respect for it.  And only a person with a heart of stone would fail to feel the power in that.
Nothing less should be taken as a meaningful confession by Armstrong.  And nothing less will be wind at his back in the journey through life ahead.


rob said...

What do expect from a liar?
More lies.

Anonymous said...

My experience as a cancer survivor working with other survivors for a couple of decades: When faced with a life-threatening illness, we are brought to our knees, asking for forgiveness for past deeds and searching the scriptures for direction in being better. When I observe Armstrong's behavior after diagnosis, it seems to be the antithesis of this. How sad for him in the long run...not because he's losing millions but because he may lose his own soul. I hope those who vow to support him because of his cancer advocacy will examine the whole history of outright lies. How do we even know if the entire cancer story is even truthful? We should question everything about one who can tell lies with such a straight face (even though the folks on this site have analyzed and doubted for a long time.)

Anonymous said...

I think if Lance Armstrong could really tell the truth and could also see himself as if he was an impartial observer he would say: I did it because I could. I tried it, it worked and I got away with it. I guess you could call me a sociopath.

Skeptical said...

Me give up Jim Caviezel and "Person of Interest" for Lance Armstrong and Oprah Winfrey. I don't think so.

nymima said...

Despicable character. Not even worth my precious time to watch Oprah and listen to his web of lies. The fact that he gets air-time at all makes me wonder who on earth will waste their time with this con-artist. His character is full of flaws and he has a long road to go to recognize this within himself and make amends to all he has hurt along the way. Until he begins to recognize this, I don't care what he has to say. He's just another sociopath looking for attention.

Anonymous said...

I wouldn't be surprised if he would put a lot of dirt an others ...

Anonymous said...

an = on ...

Anonymous said...

OT: Larry Sinclair held a press conference where he publicly stated he had a homosexual encounter with Barrack Obama. Were his statements truthful?

BostonLady said...

I would ask, how much did Lance get paid for appearing on Oprah?? Did he sell himself again?

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

People desiring to "come clean" don't need a team of lawyers, advisers, and close personal friends. They simply stand up and say "I did _____(name of the crime). They don't require a celebrity TV show. They generally go to police headquarters and simply confess. Just sayin' This looks and sounds more like an orchestrated production than a heart-felt confession.

equinox said...

If all this makes you grit your teeth and roll your eyes, take a break with this video from the Jon Stewart show where they demonstrate that Lance's ability to deceive so effectively must be the result of lie enhancing drugs. Watch from 5:50 on for the best bits.

Armstrong dopes up on Fibadrine and Fraudulax

CEC said...

OT: Peter, is this something you'd be willing to analyze? I saw this man interviewed right after the Sandy Hook killings in Newtown, CT, and thought he seemed a little creepy. Now I read where people are claiming he is a phony.


Mainah said...


Oh, the utter nerve of some people!

He's been hugely successful at scamming (weak and unaware) people in the past, he's going right back to what he knows and what worked for him before, other peoples lives be damned!

People can change, in any number of ways. The ability or potential to surrender to a deeper understanding of living in peace with others, fueled by empathy, motivated by love and understanding, rooted in truth, is possible. Throw in support and exposure to other healthy humans, motivated by the same, and you have the recipe for change. However, you'll witness it in our actions and deeds; not read in our media packets. He's (keeping himself) surrounded by the same people who helped him carry out his deception(s) before. I think about the coke-head who gets out of a stint in jail and goes back to the same crowd. FU Lance and Oprah. I ain't buying what you're selling.

Anonymous said...

Definition of LANCED
: to open with or as if with a lancet : make an incision in or into
:to be lied to repeatedly and unrepentantly by a narcissist such as Lance Armstrong

Trigger said...

"Lie enhancing" drugs are nothing new. That's why the dopers have a culture of their own and use them in an effort to skew the results of lie detector tests.

Example: Billie Jean Dunn and Shawn Adkins.