A great deal has been written on line about Lance Armstrong particularly in the last 24 hours so I thought I would add my opinions to the mire. I have just finished watching the second part of Oprah's interview with Armstrong and what I would like to write has certainly increased.
Let me start by stating that I was a huge fan and supporter of Armstrong's. I first heard about him in the mid 1990's and I watched him win a stage of the 95 tour live on television. I remember reading in a small byline of a newspaper in 1996 that he had testicular cancer and would not be cycling in that year's events. Armstrong disappeared from the media's light whilst he was undergoing cancer treatment but like many others I was following closely when he returned to cycling.
I was amazed in 99 when Armstrong won the Tour de France. I spread his story with those who weren't aware of his miraculous recovery and triumph. In 2000 I was in greater awe of Armstrong's accomplishments. I recorded a 60 Minutes story on him to show my then class and I raced off to buy his book Its Not About the Bike, quickly devouring every page. In 2001 when my class did their unit of work on Images of Greatness I did my project on Lance Armstrong coming to school one day dressed as a Tour de France cyclist.
My admiration and hero worship of Lance grew as he continued to sweep to 7 tour titles. I wanted to leave it there. I didn't want to know any stories that attempted to paint Lance in a bad light. I refused to listen when people told me that he must have been taking some serious amounts of performance enhancing drugs. I always leapt to his defence stating that he has never tested positive for any drugs when many others around him were falling down through drug use. I refused to believe people such as Floyd Landis who pointed the drug tainted finger at Armstrong.
Even when the first release of the USADA report came out in 2012 I still wouldn't believe. I was standing right alongside Lance when he said he was not going to fight anymore.
Finally it was only when more details of the USADA report came out that I threw up my hands and said to myself "No more. He obviously was taking PED's".
So to the Oprah interview. I didn't think it was as bad and as cringe worthy as many people thought. Certainly I thought there were elements that were covered too lightly (this was probably always going to occur with Oprah doing the questioning). I liked the way it started getting to the essential question, the question that everyone wanted answered, right away. The arrogance of Armstrong as well as his bullying nature shone through. When he stated that he didn't take much EPO I thought who cares? You still took it. The low point of the first half of the interview was when he stated he wouldn't talk about what occurred between himself and Betsey Andreu. This is when Oprah should have gone for the jugular. Don't let him off easily. If he doesn't want to answer this question there has to be a big reason why.
I strangely felt a sense of sympathy for Lance but then I had to remind myself that he brought everything on himself by his actions regarding drug taking. Yes I almost started to tear over when Oprah read the email from her friend that had a child who had leukaemia and she used Lance as a source of inspiration. Maybe this is what Armstrong wanted everyone to feel. I saw a recognised cycling commentator last night say that Armstrong, by choosing Oprah to conduct his first post drug relevation interview, was just trying to protect his brand. This commentator strongly argued that his first interview should have been with USADA.
The title of my blog refers to discovering that Lance isn't real. The truth has been uncovered. It was all a myth. I feel like a child who has just discovered that Santa is not real.
Of all of the writing that has been produced about Armstrong over the past 24 hours I believe this is the best as it comes very close to how I feel. I love the work of American sports writer Rick Reilly. He has been a long time supporter of Armstrong's and he places his thoughts eloquently in this piece.
http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/8852974/lance-armstrong-history-lying
Let me start by stating that I was a huge fan and supporter of Armstrong's. I first heard about him in the mid 1990's and I watched him win a stage of the 95 tour live on television. I remember reading in a small byline of a newspaper in 1996 that he had testicular cancer and would not be cycling in that year's events. Armstrong disappeared from the media's light whilst he was undergoing cancer treatment but like many others I was following closely when he returned to cycling.
I was amazed in 99 when Armstrong won the Tour de France. I spread his story with those who weren't aware of his miraculous recovery and triumph. In 2000 I was in greater awe of Armstrong's accomplishments. I recorded a 60 Minutes story on him to show my then class and I raced off to buy his book Its Not About the Bike, quickly devouring every page. In 2001 when my class did their unit of work on Images of Greatness I did my project on Lance Armstrong coming to school one day dressed as a Tour de France cyclist.
My admiration and hero worship of Lance grew as he continued to sweep to 7 tour titles. I wanted to leave it there. I didn't want to know any stories that attempted to paint Lance in a bad light. I refused to listen when people told me that he must have been taking some serious amounts of performance enhancing drugs. I always leapt to his defence stating that he has never tested positive for any drugs when many others around him were falling down through drug use. I refused to believe people such as Floyd Landis who pointed the drug tainted finger at Armstrong.
Even when the first release of the USADA report came out in 2012 I still wouldn't believe. I was standing right alongside Lance when he said he was not going to fight anymore.
Finally it was only when more details of the USADA report came out that I threw up my hands and said to myself "No more. He obviously was taking PED's".
So to the Oprah interview. I didn't think it was as bad and as cringe worthy as many people thought. Certainly I thought there were elements that were covered too lightly (this was probably always going to occur with Oprah doing the questioning). I liked the way it started getting to the essential question, the question that everyone wanted answered, right away. The arrogance of Armstrong as well as his bullying nature shone through. When he stated that he didn't take much EPO I thought who cares? You still took it. The low point of the first half of the interview was when he stated he wouldn't talk about what occurred between himself and Betsey Andreu. This is when Oprah should have gone for the jugular. Don't let him off easily. If he doesn't want to answer this question there has to be a big reason why.
I strangely felt a sense of sympathy for Lance but then I had to remind myself that he brought everything on himself by his actions regarding drug taking. Yes I almost started to tear over when Oprah read the email from her friend that had a child who had leukaemia and she used Lance as a source of inspiration. Maybe this is what Armstrong wanted everyone to feel. I saw a recognised cycling commentator last night say that Armstrong, by choosing Oprah to conduct his first post drug relevation interview, was just trying to protect his brand. This commentator strongly argued that his first interview should have been with USADA.
The title of my blog refers to discovering that Lance isn't real. The truth has been uncovered. It was all a myth. I feel like a child who has just discovered that Santa is not real.
Of all of the writing that has been produced about Armstrong over the past 24 hours I believe this is the best as it comes very close to how I feel. I love the work of American sports writer Rick Reilly. He has been a long time supporter of Armstrong's and he places his thoughts eloquently in this piece.
http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/8852974/lance-armstrong-history-lying
No comments:
Post a Comment