Armstrong comes clean, but light on the details

CHICAGO He did it. He finally admitted it. Lance Armstrong doped.

He was light on the details and didn't name names. He mused that he might not have been caught if not for his comeback in 2009. And he was certain his "fate was sealed" when longtime friend, training partner and trusted lieutenant George Hincapie, who was along for the ride on all seven of Armstrong's Tour de France wins from 1999-2005, was forced to give him up to anti-doping authorities.

But right from the start and more than two dozen times during the first of a two-part interview Thursday night with Oprah Winfrey on her OWN network, the disgraced former cycling champion acknowledged what he had lied about repeatedly for years, and what had been one of the worst-kept secrets for the better part of a week: He was the ringleader of an elaborate doping scheme on a U.S. Postal Service team that swept him to the top of the podium at the Tour de France time after time.

"I'm a flawed character," he said.

Did it feel wrong?

Play Video

Armstrong on doping: I didn't think it was cheating

"No," Armstrong replied. "Scary."

"Did you feel bad about it?" Winfrey pressed him.

"No," he said. "Even scarier."

"Did you feel in any way that you were cheating?"

"No," Armstrong paused. "Scariest."

Play Video

Armstrong's former teammate speaks out on confession

"I went and looked up the definition of cheat," he added a moment later. "And the definition is to gain an advantage on a rival or foe. I didn't view it that way. I viewed it as a level playing field."

Wearing a blue blazer and open-neck shirt, Armstrong was direct and matter-of-fact, neither pained nor defensive. He looked straight ahead. There were no tears and very few laughs.

He dodged few questions and refused to implicate anyone else, even as he said it was humanly impossible to win seven straight Tours without doping.

"I'm not comfortable talking about other people," Armstrong said. "I don't want to accuse anybody."

Whether his televised confession will help or hurt Armstrong's bruised reputation and his already-tenuous defense in at least two pending lawsuits, and possibly a third, remains to be seen.

12 Photos

Lance Armstrong's doping denials through the years

"CBS Evening News" anchor Scott Pelley reported Tuesday that the Justice Department rejected two offers from Armstrong as inadequate. Those offers included paying more than $5 million to the government to compensate for the fraud he allegedly committed against the Postal Service, and cooperating as a witness in a federal investigation.

On Thursday night, a story that seemed too good to be true — cancer survivor returns to win one of sport's most grueling events seven times in a row — was revealed to be just that.

"This story was so perfect for so long. It's this myth, this perfect story, and it wasn't true," he said.

Winfrey got right to the point when the interview began, asking for yes-or-no answers to five questions.

Did Armstrong take banned substances? "Yes."

Did that include the blood-booster EPO? "Yes."

Did he do blood doping and use transfusions? "Yes."

Did he use testosterone, cortisone and human growth hormone? "Yes."

Did he take banned substances or blood dope in all his Tour wins? "Yes."

42 Photos

Lance Armstrong

In his climb to the top, Armstrong cast aside teammates who questioned his tactics, yet swore he raced clean and tried to silence anyone who said otherwise. Ruthless and rich enough to settle any score, no place seemed beyond his reach — courtrooms, the court of public opinion, even along the roads of his sport's most prestigious race.

That relentless pursuit was one of the things that Armstrong said he regretted most.

"I deserve this," he said twice.

"It's a major flaw, and it's a guy who expected to get whatever he wanted and to control every outcome. And it's inexcusable. And when I say there are people who will hear this and never forgive me, I understand that. I do. ...

"That defiance, that attitude, that arrogance, you cannot deny it."

Armstrong said he started doping in mid-1990s but didn't when he finished third in his comeback attempt.

Anti-doping officials have said nothing short of a confession under oath — "not talking to a talk-show host," is how World Anti-Doping Agency director general David Howman put it — could prompt a reconsideration of Armstrong's lifetime ban from sanctioned events.

Play Video

Lance Armstrong: What will happen endorsement fortune?

He's also had discussions with officials at the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, whose 1,000-page report in October included testimony from nearly a dozen former teammates and led to stripping Armstrong of his Tour titles. Shortly after, he lost nearly all his endorsements, was forced to walk away from the Livestrong cancer charity he founded in 1997, and just this week was stripped of his bronze medal from the 2000 Olympics.

Armstrong could provide information that might get his ban reduced to eight years. By then, he would be 49. He returned to triathlons, where he began his professional career as a teenager, after retiring from cycling in 2011, and has told people he's desperate to get back.

Initial reaction from anti-doping officials ranged from hostile to cool.

USADA chief Travis Tygart, who pursued the case against Armstrong when others had stopped, said the cyclist's confession was just a start.

Play Video

Lance Armstrong offered donation to USADA during investigation

Play Video

USADA head received death threats during Armstrong investigation

"Tonight, Lance Armstrong finally acknowledged that his cycling career was built on a powerful combination of doping and deceit," Tygart said. "His admission that he doped throughout his career is a small step in the right direction. But if he is sincere in his desire to correct his past mistakes, he will testify under oath about the full extent of his doping activities."

In an interview broadcast on Showtime's "60 Minutes Sports" last week, Tygart told Pelley that Armstrong offered a "significant financial donation" to USADA of somewhere in the ballpark of $250,000.

Tygart also told Pelley that Armstrong was involved in intimidating witnesses to keep them from assisting USADA's investigation.

WADA president John Fahey derided Armstrong's defense that he doped to create "a level playing field" as "a convenient way of justifying what he did — a fraud."

"He was wrong, he cheated and there was no excuse for what he did," Fahey said by telephone in Australia.

If Armstrong "was looking for redemption," Fahey added, "he didn't succeed in getting that."

Livestrong issued a statement that said the charity was "disappointed by the news that Lance Armstrong misled people during and after his cycling career, including us."

"Earlier this week, Lance apologized to our staff and we accepted his apology in order to move on and chart a strong, independent course," it said.

The interview revealed very few details about Armstrong's performance-enhancing regimen that would surprise anti-doping officials.

• no previous page
• next

1/2

[Chlandy7]

While I believe that what Lance Armstrong did was wrong, I still do not believe that we as a public should condemn him for everything that he has done. Yes, he should lose his previous titles because he cheated, but do we really need to go as far as saying that he is a terrible human being? If you look at his personal life, Lance Armstrong has fought stage three testicular cancer, which gave him a forty percent chance of living, a feat in and of itself. He started the Livestrong Foundation, an organization dedicated to providing money for cancer research. Armstrong even donates much of his winnings to outside charities in order to spread his beliefs and generosity.
Now let's look at why Lance Armstrong is being received in such ill light. He has:
• Cheated during multiple races by using illegal Performance-Enhancing Drugs (PEDs)
• Lied to race officials and the public the whole time
• Abused his power in order to keep people quiet
If you base your opinion of Armstrong solely upon the above allegations, it is reasonable to believe that he should be in prison. However, if you look at the facts, the whole world of sports should be condemned for the same reasons. From Armstrong's seven consecutive Tour de France wins from 1999 to 2005, only one of the top three finishers from each race has not been charged with doping. And even he is subject to suspicion.
Now don't get me wrong, I agree that Armstrong deserves no special treatment, he broke the law! But, that doesn't mean that he should be the political scapegoat for the sports world. Kobe Bryant, for instance, has been charged with sexual and physical assault multiple times, but was never convicted. He has since been forgiven and forgotten. Yet, when someone such as Lance Armstrong comes out to the general public and admits that he cheated along with most of the other competitors, he is labeled as a monster. I say that we should look both ways before we jump to a conclusion.
So should we portray him as a monster? No. Lance Armstrong is a great man who has done something unforgivable to the sports world, but that doesn't mean that he is a bad human being. I, for one, will continue to wear my yellow bracelet with pride.

[foo8259]

France will have to accept less of an spectacle or race; the le tour, as it is now, is just not doable, and never has been, by and un-doped human.

[Phillytrainride]

Why anyone would pay another second of attention to this guy is beyond me. Liar and cheat. Had he fessed up on day one, it would have been another story. Instead he screwed people over, sued them, defamed them, all so he could look better, when he was a liar all along. He can never be trusted again. Sorry Lance, go look somewhere else for pity, because I cant find any for you right now. You lie better than you ride a bike. How sad.

[legalbutunjust]

Heard enough by now about this character.

"Next"....

[momfightingsonscancer]

Let's be clear about something else here: since the above are truths about why he's doing it and his behaviour in the interview is self evident and anyone in criminal law investigations could pick his interview apart in terms of lack of true remorse (not humble, just business like, teflon man like parroting the right words, cold affect), if anyone tries to defend him with crap like "he's admitting it and we have to forgive him" they are people you should seperate from for anything but cursory relationships. Usually those who run to forgive psychopathic or sociopathic liars are themselves people who practice lies and deceit and they defend others because it is their secret hope that if they were to ever get caught they would want others to be lenient with them. This society has rampant pseudo-normal people walking around practicing lies, deception and self-deception. We have to stop enabling this. As I wrote earlier in the week - lies and deceit are the most toxic things a person can do to others. It's like spewing acid onto relationships because it kills them. Once trust is gone it's gone. People will forever question everything you say and do. Honesty breeds trust and is the cornerstone of all healthy human relationships. Without it you have a relationship on quicksand. We are not meant to live without human connection. We need it and in doing so we seek comfort. Authentic 'comfort' comes from being able to trust another human being and at it's most basic, we have a primal need to trust that they are who they present, that what they say can be trusted and therefore we can act using it accordingly (trusting them with our kids, trusting them with our money, trusting them to be there for us, trusting them with our love, etc). And trusting them NOT to rip off their mask and frighten us at our core by showing us they are not who we thought they were and they betrayed our trust. We all carry this primal fear that if we trust the wrong people that can happen to us. Others carry the fear that they will slip and their mask will come off. We owe it to each other to not enable this behaviour by forgiving it. Our children need real, honest, people of character to look up to. People with a real spine who can say "no" to things that are flat out wrong. People who use the sniff test even when they themselves stand to gain, and will realize if it's too good to be true you will pay for it in the end. People who say no when their kids or others ask for things they shouldn't have. That is what being a real adult is. Able to be strong. Not a pseudo-adult (chronologically adult/ emotionally a teenager) who wants to be their friend vs. their parent. Excuses, rationalizations, are all tools of deception/self-deception of the passive-aggressive narccisst. Weak. We will all take only one thing with us when we depart this world - our character and how we lived with it. Children need real heros - adults role modeling stellar character traits for them to aspire to. We need to teach them the traits to honor or be proud of are not skills, talents, money, looks, wit or charm. Use this with your kids: "if you become a quadraplegic or disfigured and you are a person of character, you will die noble vs. having no character and thus a small person inside with 'stuff'." You will be going against the tide but your adult children will thank you and admire you for being a parent.

[erasmus111]

If you were to break your comment up into separate paragraphs, I might read it. : )

[Type_Z]

Loser, go away.

[momfightingsonscancer]

To all of you who are cutting him slack, let's be clear: he is a sociopathic/psychopathic liar.I could care less about cycling. I care about us evolving as humans and I see us devolving. He did not come forward all these years as he indignantly deflected and projected responsibility, counter-attacking those who dared to call him on it. This is classic behaviour you can read about in the DSM manual(psychology manual for doctors) re: people just like him who suffer from these psychological disorders. They go on the attack knowing they are lieing, they don't come forward of their own volition until something in their life is so threatened that they have to give in OR if just caught. Otherwise they will go down in flames taking the deceit to their graves. If you pay attention and have any education or training in psychology and human behaviours you can watch this interview and it's clear how he is conflicted in his desire to be fully responsible and yet not take it on so fully that he would say "listen, this is all details that don't really matter because the bottom line is I cheated, I methodically and pathologically lied about it." Those were choices not mistakes. His body language combined with choice of words is scary. He's business like. He does not come across as someone remorseful(words alone don't make you remorseful). He can't because he doesn't have the ability to have that emotion (inherent in the sociopath/psychopath narcissist- they will throw others under the bus before confessing as the hallmark of their mental disease). He comes across as someone who we have seen many times before - a person caught who has had professionals explain to him how wrong it was and coached him on how he has to take responsibility. There's no visible or audible affect of remorse. But since the whole thing was not self driven out of horrific guilt, remorse, sadness at having to live with himself, he can't come across as that. The best red flag/scary parts are these: 1. When he admits that he may have called Betsy Andreu two bad names but not the third and makes a joke about it. Only a scarily deeply disturbed person would allow themselves to joke while doing an interview confessing to 13 years of cheating/deceit and harming so many. We see murderers behave like this in confessions. Why? Because they are detached from their actions emotionally and have such grandiose sense of entitlement as if they have any leg to stand on to justify any of thier behaviour even in the face of it. They are so highly manipulative that they will try to make the narrative off topic on some minutae detail and argue that vs. the overriding important topic. Oprah caught him and put it back to him on this which was good so that the viewer who might have gotten duped there had her point it out. Better yet, all the viewers who themselves practice this same form of arguing when they are caught had it put in their face how sick that is 2. when he says "if I hadn't come back we wouldn't be sitting here... we are sitting here because there was an investigation...a man with a gun and a badge.. I thought the stories would continue but that's all.." Bam! Wow. Scary. Because he's not alone.

[jgg000010]

CBS, do you seriously think that this is the most important news story going on right now?

[bobnjersey]

["I'm a flawed character," he said.]
---------------------------------
aren't we all.

we build them up ... want them to be the heroes that they become ... exalt them when they deliver on our expectations ... and then we revel in their fall from grace ... condemning them for what they've done ... forgetting that it was us that made them do whatever was necessary to fulfill our expectations.

an unusual beast we humans are.

[erasmus111]

"an unusual beast we humans are."


That should read, "an unusual beast we AMERICANS are".


Americans are totally obsessed with celebrities.....and GUNS.

I wonder why that is? What's lacking in your lives that you develop these obsessions over things?

[bobnjersey]

[That should read, "an unusual beast we AMERICANS are". Americans are totally obsessed with celebrities.....and GUNS. I wonder why that is? What's lacking in your lives that you develop these obsessions over things?]
-----------------------------------
you need to read some history.

my statements do not only apply to mr. armstrong ... but to the human tendency that has existed for thousands of years.

and where do guns come into any of this? you must be posting on the wrong story.

[twophad]

Here's hoping that someday these obvious human failings in our athletes will cause us to start looking at them as, well...humans who are very good at a particular activity, and not "role models" or heroes (except for those interested in the sport). I never have understood why people placed "faith" in actors or athletes.